Re: Default gucs for EXPLAIN

Le mar. 26 mai 2020 à 16:25, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> a écrit :

> Greetings,
>
> * Guillaume Lelarge (guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info) wrote:
> > Le mar. 26 mai 2020 à 04:27, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> a écrit
> :
> > > To that end- what if this was done client-side with '\explain' or
> > > similar? Basically, it'd work like \watch or \g but we'd have options
> > > under pset like "explain_analyze t/f" and such. I feel like that'd
> also
> > > largely address the concerns about how this might 'feature creep' to
> > > other commands- because those other commands don't work with a query
> > > buffer, so it wouldn't really make sense for them.
> > >
> > > As for the concerns wrt explain UPDATE or explain DETELE actually
> > > running the query, that's what transactions are for, and if you don't
> > > feel comfortable using transactions or using these options- then don't.
> >
> > This means you'll always have to check if the new GUCs are set up in a
> way
> > it will actually execute the query or to open a transaction for the same
> > reason. This is a huge behaviour change where people might lose data.
>
> It's only a behaviour change if you enable it.. and the suggestion I
> made specifically wouldn't even be a regular 'explain', you'd be using
> '\explain' in psql, a new command.
>
> > I really don't like this proposal (the new GUCs).
>
> The proposal you're commenting on (seemingly mine, anyway) didn't
> include adding any new GUCs.
>
>
My bad. I didn't read your email properly, sorry.

I wouldn't complain about a \explain metacommand. The proposal I (still)
dislike is Vik's.

--
Guillaume.