Re: Proposal: Progressive explain

From: Rafael Thofehrn Castro <rafaelthca(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Proposal: Progressive explain
Date: 2025-03-28 20:12:40
Message-ID: CAG0ozMo2HQjmpn9AHGXOo726-PgH=+XmkoPUVxAqvcOS6puq8g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> That is correct. Interval currently is only used when instrumentation
> is enabled through progressive_explain = analyze.

I guess there would still be a point in printing the plan on a regular
interval
when instrumentation is disabled. In that case the only thing we would see
changing in the plan is the node currently being executed. But with that we
add more overhead to progressive_explain = 'explain', that in that case will
also require a custom execProcNode wrapper.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2025-03-28 20:15:19 Re: Adding skip scan (including MDAM style range skip scan) to nbtree
Previous Message Rafael Thofehrn Castro 2025-03-28 20:04:04 Re: Proposal: Progressive explain