| From: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Patch: add timing of buffer I/O requests |
| Date: | 2012-04-30 15:04:13 |
| Message-ID: | CAM-w4HMG9eNNR-PEFFM=nH1T8JVjc2BR79LBj_M1vK0K5mHb_g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> As for track_iotiming -> track_io_timing, I'm fine with that as well.
I'm still grumpy about the idea of a GUC changing the explain analyze
output. How would people feel about adding an explain option that
explicitly requests io timing for this explain analyze and then having
the io timing be enabled if either it's requested by explain analyze
or if it's set on globally? That would make it more consistent with
the other explain analyze options?
I realize I don't get to be grumpy without actually contributing
anything, but I'm happy to write up the patch if people agree with the
change.
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-04-30 15:12:56 | Re: Patch: add timing of buffer I/O requests |
| Previous Message | Albe Laurenz | 2012-04-30 14:59:46 | Re: Analyzing foreign tables & memory problems |