Re: [PATCH] Optionally record Plan IDs to track plan changes for a query

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Lukas Fittl <lukas(at)fittl(dot)com>
Cc: Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Marko M <marko(at)pganalyze(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Optionally record Plan IDs to track plan changes for a query
Date: 2025-01-31 05:33:14
Message-ID: Z5xgmgyV-wnzMpkO@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 09:19:49PM -0800, Lukas Fittl wrote:
> I'd be happy to tackle that - were you thinking to simply move any comments
> before the field, in each case where we're adding an annotation?

Yes.

> Separately I've been thinking how we could best have a discussion/review on
> whether the jumbling of specific plan struct fields is correct. I was
> thinking maybe a quick wiki page could be helpful, noting why to jumble/not
> jumble certain fields?

Makes sense. This is a complicated topic.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ashutosh Bapat 2025-01-31 06:03:10 Minor fix in pg_buffercache_evict documentation
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2025-01-31 05:22:03 Re: Improve error handling for invalid slots and ensure a same 'inactive_since' time for inactive slots