| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: On disable_cost |
| Date: | 2024-10-02 08:55:01 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvogkpK7i01wnHzsuLXdSr1NQvBEYuAkKpSwz_UydkgKSQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 at 06:17, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
> Why did you change "Disabled" from an integer to a boolean?
I just don't think "Disabled Nodes" is all that self-documenting and
I'm also unsure why the full integer value of disabled_nodes is
required over just displaying the boolean value of if the node is
disabled or not. Won't readers look at the remainder of the plan to
determine information about which other nodes are disabled? Do we need
to give them a running total?
> If you see a join where two plans were disabled, that's useful information.
I'm not sure if I follow what you mean here. The patch will show
"Disabled: true" for both the inner and outer side of the join if both
of those are disabled. The difference is that my patch does not show
the join itself is disabled like master does. I thought that's what
you were complaining about. Can you show an example of what you mean?
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Steele | 2024-10-02 09:03:27 | Re: Return pg_control from pg_backup_stop(). |
| Previous Message | Peter Smith | 2024-10-02 08:54:32 | Re: Conflict Detection and Resolution |