| From: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: | 2025-03-19 20:51:53 |
| Message-ID: | CAA5RZ0vFHyK=39fOobQDZVPTfcJEAGx=cyu6vmAy6J4JZ7+SKg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> 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?
--
Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services (AWS)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2025-03-19 21:03:59 | Re: [PoC] Federated Authn/z with OAUTHBEARER |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2025-03-19 20:42:43 | Re: pg_trgm comparison bug on cross-architecture replication due to different char implementation |