| From: | Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: making EXPLAIN extensible |
| Date: | 2025-03-17 13:10:23 |
| Message-ID: | d789555b-de6a-4a55-95e2-3684a381e00d@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 3/12/25 20:58, Sami Imseih wrote:
>> I think this is a seriously bad idea. The first line is already
>> overloaded; we don't need several different extensions adding more
>> stuff to it.
>
> Fair enough.
>
>> Plus, this doesn't consider what to do in non-text
>> output formats.
>
> the hook will be a no-op for non-text formats, which is not
> desirable behavior. I get that also.
>
> I have no strong feelings for this, but wanted to see what
> others think.
I'm against it. For me, the best model there is to allow extensions to
add something and nothing more. If it wants to change the core explain
code - use ExplainOneQuery_hook instead.
The reason here is to reduce possible competition among extensions.
I already have troubles with conflict on queryid modifications and
potential conflict in the planner_hook - if someone invents another
extension that will provide a plan tree. So, it would be better to
reduce conflicts whenever possible.
--
regards, Andrei Lepikhov
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2025-03-17 13:19:27 | Re: PATCH: warn about, and deprecate, clear text passwords |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2025-03-17 13:10:06 | Re: lwlocknames.h beautification attempt |