From: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Rafael Thofehrn Castro <rafaelthca(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Maciek Sakrejda <m(dot)sakrejda(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Proposal: In-flight explain logging |
Date: | 2023-12-04 16:18:06 |
Message-ID: | CAExHW5tMG7HgXiAybiD0wVi1Pnnm47zYZb85bMvtjJi69=+EJw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Rafael,
On Sun, Dec 3, 2023 at 2:27 AM Rafael Thofehrn Castro
<rafaelthca(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hello Maciek,
>
> Thanks for pointing that out. They are indeed super similar. Before I wrote the patch I searched for
> "explain" related ones. I guess I should have performed a better search.
>
> Comparing the patches, there is one main difference: the existing patch prints only the plan without
> any instrumentation details of the current execution state at that particular time. That is precisely what
> I am looking for with this new feature.
>
> I guess the way to proceed here would be to use the already existing patch as a lot of work was done
> there already.
It might help if you add an incremental patch for reporting
instrumentation details on top of already existing patches on that
thread.
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tristan Partin | 2023-12-04 16:31:36 | Re: Rename ShmemVariableCache and initialize it in more standard way |
Previous Message | Kumar, Sachin | 2023-12-04 16:07:59 | Re: pg_upgrade failing for 200+ million Large Objects |