Re: contrib/pg_stat_statements 1202

From: Greg Stark <greg(dot)stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: contrib/pg_stat_statements 1202
Date: 2008-12-09 17:44:51
Message-ID: EBE2E804-23D5-4862-AFE8-15AE2EA81AD7@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Yes this is one reasonable option, as is the idea of using XML or a
table and making it the client's problem. Neither are going to happen
for this release I think.

And in any case it will always be useful to have an option to print
all the available information anyways so we make as well do that with
"verbose".

--
Greg

On 9 Dec 2008, at 16:35, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

>> As stuff matures and becomes indispensable we could consider moving
>> it to the
>> regular EXPLAIN or implement some way to specify precisely which
>> data the user
>> wants. Or just say XML/table data/whatever will solve the problem
>> for us.
>
> I think some way to specify precisely which data the user wants is the
> way to go. The amount of data that there is to be printed is only
> going to continue to increase. If the only toggle is a boolean flag
> to display ALL or NONE of it, then every time someone proposes a new
> type of output, we're going to argue about whether it's useful enough
> to be worth the display real estate.
>
> I'm not sure what the best way is though. I don't think continuing to
> add keywords between EXPLAIN and the start of the query is very
> scalable. Putting parentheses around the option list seems like it
> might eliminate a lot of grammar headaches:
>
> EXPLAIN (option, option, option...) SELECT ...
>
> ...Robert

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Chernow 2008-12-09 17:46:11 Re: parallel restore vs. windows
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2008-12-09 17:36:40 Re: parallel restore vs. windows