Re: making EXPLAIN extensible

>
> On 19/3/2025 21:51, Sami Imseih wrote:
> >> Why do you think this hook is not redundant?
> > what is it redundant with?
> >
> >> It would be better to add the parameter "type: EXPLAIN_ONLY |
> >> ANALYZE_ONLY | BOTH" to the RegisterExtensionExplainOption() routine.
> >> This value will be saved inside the ExplainExtensionOption structure and
> >> processed by the core inside the ParseExplainOptionList.
> >
> > hmm, IIUC, what you are describing is flag that will be limited to
> > only check if an option can be used with EXPLAIN_ONLY, ANALYZE_ONLY
> > or both. But what about if I have a case to check against between other
> > extension options? let's say ExtensionAOptionA and ExtensionAoptionB.
> > How would that work with the way you are suggesting?
> That makes sense. It would be more effective to include the meaningful
> example in Robert's extension for v7-0001.

While it will be good to provide an example in v7-0001, I can't see
any of the pg_overexplain options needing such validation.

> I'm sorry, I was confused; previously, the difficulties faced by
> extension developers were always attributed to him (refer to the
> discussion on the selectivity hook). However, now you're introducing a
> hook for a trivial operation that could simply be resolved at the end of
> execution within a per-node hook with tiny inconsistency in output. I'm
> pleased to see a change in the narrative.

I think you are referring to the idea to put a hook before
/* in text format, the first line ends here */

After considering the comments, I do see that was not a good proposal. You are
correct, and the per-node hook is enough.

--
Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services (AWS)