| From: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: making EXPLAIN extensible |
| Date: | 2025-03-13 21:51:52 |
| Message-ID: | CAA5RZ0uky7T78K4+-+3jMLrtfF2Oh7_Km6-XEoCc6E4M4Bpe6Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> The validation point is an interesting one. I agree that we don't
> want the behavior to depend on the order in which options are
> written.
Here is what I applied on top of v6-0001 to correct this issue. Attaching it
as a text file only as Robert may have a different opinion on how to fix
this.
I felt the best way is to create another handler for registering a validation
function. This means we have to loop through the options list twice,
but I don't think that is a problem.
postgres=# explain (remote_plans, analyze) select * from t_r1;
ERROR: EXPLAIN options REMOTE_PLANS and ANALYZE cannot be used together
postgres=# explain (analyze, remote_plans) select * from t_r1;
ERROR: EXPLAIN options REMOTE_PLANS and ANALYZE cannot be used together
Regards,
Sami
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| 0001-Add-a-handler-to-validate-an-EXPLAIN-option-defined-.txt | text/plain | 3.1 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2025-03-13 21:52:08 | Re: Query ID Calculation Fix for DISTINCT / ORDER BY and LIMIT / OFFSET |
| Previous Message | Melanie Plageman | 2025-03-13 21:41:14 | Re: BitmapHeapScan streaming read user and prelim refactoring |