From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info>, Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Christofides <michael(at)pgmustard(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nikolay Samokhvalov <samokhvalov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Proposals for EXPLAIN: rename ANALYZE to EXECUTE and extend VERBOSE |
Date: | 2024-11-25 22:52:34 |
Message-ID: | CAApHDvowEgBX0w-4+UFYL9NmMYSyOF2mxrCSZXhiBe+VUYuW=A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 at 09:44, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 4:23 PM David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > I think this might be a good time for anyone out there who is against
> > turning on BUFFERS when ANALYZE is on to speak up.
> >
> > Votes for changing this so far seem to be: Me, Michael Christofides,
> > Guillaume Lelarge, Robert, Greg Sabino Mullane, and David Fetter (from
> > 2020) [1].
> >
> > Votes against: None
>
> Just to be clear, my vote is more like +0 than +1. I recognize that
> changing this is popular and I'm not opposed to it, but I'm also not
> unhappy with things as they are.
OK, thanks. I likely took your neutrality here in a more positive
light after reading the 4-year-old message at [1]. That probably
wasn't the right thing to do.
There are still no votes against it, so unless some come in, I plan to
start looking at the patches proposed to turn buffers on with analyze
with my committer hat on.
David
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2024-11-25 23:05:41 | Re: Self contradictory examining on rel's baserestrictinfo |
Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2024-11-25 22:42:05 | Re: Statistics Import and Export |