Re: making EXPLAIN extensible

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: 2025-03-12 19:58:50
Message-ID: CAA5RZ0vPvERsw1SJPohLm-sunLqndwEoP4VMD4NeZ1D0VVNB3w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> I think this is a seriously bad idea. The first line is already
> overloaded; we don't need several different extensions adding more
> stuff to it.

Fair enough.

> Plus, this doesn't consider what to do in non-text
> output formats.

the hook will be a no-op for non-text formats, which is not
desirable behavior. I get that also.

I have no strong feelings for this, but wanted to see what
others think.

thanks!

--
Sami Imseih

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Melanie Plageman 2025-03-12 20:01:59 Re: BitmapHeapScan streaming read user and prelim refactoring
Previous Message Marcos Pegoraro 2025-03-12 19:52:16 Missing constraint when duplicated unique index ?