| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrei Lepikhov <a(dot)lepikhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Konstantin Knizhnik <knizhnik(at)garret(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Custom explain options |
| Date: | 2024-01-10 06:46:44 |
| Message-ID: | ZZ49VN0kP4CRrmg2@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 01:29:30PM +0700, Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
> What do you think about this really useful feature? Do you wish to develop
> it further?
I am biased here. This seems like a lot of code for something we've
been delegating to the explain hook for ages. Even if I can see the
appeal of pushing that more into explain.c to get more data on a
per-node basis depending on the custom options given by the caller of
an EXPLAIN entry point, I cannot get really excited about the extra
maintenance this facility would involve compared to the potential
gains, knowing that there's a hook.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Richard Guo | 2024-01-10 07:07:45 | Re: Can we rely on the ordering of paths in pathlist? |
| Previous Message | John Naylor | 2024-01-10 06:40:40 | Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum |