| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: EXPLAIN IndexOnlyScan shows disabled when enable_indexonlyscan=on |
| Date: | 2024-10-23 00:50:56 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwbNOj4f6ar1+jkBFGhK+t6fNwzM0ygLh7GBFSxVGSO8TQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 7:20 PM David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 at 14:46, David G. Johnston
> <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > We should probably at least improve the documentation in 19.17.1; this
> interaction is apparently not self-evident.
>
> Yeah, I agree. The documentation could better reflect the current
> behaviour.
>
> Do you want to submit that in patch form?
>
>
Went with a slightly different wording that seems to flow better with the
xrefs I added between the two options.
David J.
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v1-0001-doc-Cross-reference-enable_indexscan-and-enable_inde.patch | text/x-patch | 2.2 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrei Lepikhov | 2024-10-23 01:39:38 | Re: Consider the number of columns in the sort cost model |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-10-23 00:44:15 | Re: Unexpected table size usage for small composite arrays |