Re: Improving EXPLAIN's display of SubPlan nodes

On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 at 19:39, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Here's a cleaned-up version that seems to successfully resolve
> PARAM_EXEC references in all cases. I haven't changed the
> "(plan_name).colN" notation, but that's an easy fix once we have
> consensus on the spelling.

I took a more detailed look at this and the code and doc changes all
look good to me.

There's a comment at the end of find_param_generator() that should
probably say "No generator found", rather than "No referent found".

The get_rule_expr() code could perhaps be simplified a bit, getting
rid of the show_subplan_name variable and moving the recursive calls
to get_rule_expr() to after the switch statement -- if testexpr is
non-NULL, print it, else print the subplan name probably works for all
subplan types.

The "colN" notation has grown on me, especially when you look at
examples like those in partition_prune.out with a mix of Param types.
Not using "$n" for 2 different purposes is good, and I much prefer
this to the original "FROM [HASHED] SubPlan N (returns ...)" notation.

> There are two other loose ends bothering me:
>
> 1. I see that Gather nodes sometimes print things like
>
> -> Gather (actual rows=N loops=N)
> Workers Planned: 2
> Params Evaluated: $0, $1
> Workers Launched: N
>
> I propose we nuke the "Params Evaluated" output altogether.

+1

> 2. MULTIEXPR_SUBLINK subplans now result in EXPLAIN output like
>
> -> Result
> Output: (SubPlan 1).col1, (SubPlan 1).col2, (SubPlan 1), i.tableoid, i.ctid
>
> The undecorated reference to (SubPlan 1) is fairly confusing, since
> it doesn't correspond to anything that will actually get output.
> I suggest that perhaps instead this should read
>
> Output: (SubPlan 1).col1, (SubPlan 1).col2, IGNORE(SubPlan 1), i.tableoid, i.ctid
>
> or
>
> Output: (SubPlan 1).col1, (SubPlan 1).col2, RESET(SubPlan 1), i.tableoid, i.ctid

I think "RESET()" or "RESCAN()" or something like that is better than
"INGORE()", because it indicates that it is actually doing something.
I don't really have a better idea. Perhaps not all uppercase though,
since that seems to go against the rest of the EXPLAIN output.

Regards,
Dean