From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | torikoshia <torikoshia(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
Cc: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Record queryid when auto_explain.log_verbose is on |
Date: | 2023-01-25 07:46:36 |
Message-ID: | Y9DeXI/Ukv2Lebmu@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 11:01:46PM +0900, torikoshia wrote:
> On 2023-01-23 09:35, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> ExplainPrintTriggers() is kind of different because there is
>> auto_explain_log_triggers. Still, we could add a flag in ExplainState
>> deciding if the triggers should be printed, so as it would be possible
>> to move ExplainPrintTriggers() and ExplainPrintJITSummary() within
>> ExplainPrintPlan(), as well? The same kind of logic could be applied
>> for the planning time and the buffer usage if these are tracked in
>> ExplainState rather than being explicit arguments of ExplainOnePlan().
>> Not to mention that this reduces the differences between
>> ExplainOneUtility() and ExplainOnePlan().
>
> Hmm, this refactoring would worth considering, but should be done in another
> patch?
It could be. That's fine by me to not do that as a first step as the
query ID computation is done just after ExplainPrintPlan(). An
argument could be made about ExplainPrintPlan(), though
compute_query_id = regress offers an option to control that, as well.
>> Leaving this comment aside, I think that this should have at least one
>> regression test in 001_auto_explain.pl, where query_log() can be
>> called while the verbose GUC of auto_explain is enabled.
>
> Agreed.
> Added a test for queryid logging.
Thanks. Will check and probably apply on HEAD.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2023-01-25 07:54:27 | Re: drop postmaster symlink |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-01-25 07:34:21 | Re: recovery modules |