| From: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | stepan rutz <stepan(dot)rutz(at)gmx(dot)de>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Detoasting optionally to make Explain-Analyze less misleading |
| Date: | 2024-04-10 10:01:46 |
| Message-ID: | CAEze2WhdmjbzVxgP8aW=0Dqynweh72QCdWRyxS24+1nmVopmrg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 at 23:50, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I've pushed this after a good deal of cosmetic polishing -- for
> example, I spent some effort on making serializeAnalyzeReceive
> look as much like printtup as possible, in hopes of making it
> easier to keep the two functions in sync in future.
Upthread at [0], Stepan mentioned that we should default to SERIALIZE
when ANALYZE is enabled. I suspect a patch in that direction would
primarily contain updates in the test plan outputs, but I've not yet
worked on that.
Does anyone else have a strong opinion for or against adding SERIALIZE
to the default set of explain features enabled with ANALYZE?
I'll add this to "Decisions to Recheck Mid-Beta"-section if nobody has
a clear objection.
Kind regards,
Matthias van de Meent
Neon (https://neon.tech)
[0] https://postgr.es/m/ea885631-21f1-425a-97ed-c4bfb8cf9c63%40gmx.de
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tender Wang | 2024-04-10 10:11:02 | Re: Can't find not null constraint, but \d+ shows that |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2024-04-10 09:58:22 | Re: Is this a problem in GenericXLogFinish()? |