From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: EXPLAIN BUFFERS |
Date: | 2009-10-15 15:06:23 |
Message-ID: | 29566.1255619183@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 7:29 AM, Itagaki Takahiro
> <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>> EXPLAIN BUFFERS only shows 'hit', 'read' and 'temp read' in text format
>> to fit in display, but xml or json format contains all of them.
> I was very careful when I submitted the machine-readable explain patch
> to make sure that the choice of which information was displayed was
> independent of the format, and I think that we should stick with that.
I thought one of the main purposes of adding the machine-readable
formats was to allow inclusion of information that we thought too
verbose for the human-readable format. Whether this info falls into
that category remains to be seen, but I don't agree with the premise
that the information content must always be exactly the same.
FWIW, the patch's output as it stood a few days ago (one extra line per
node, conditional on a BUFFERS option) did seem perfectly reasonable to
me, and I don't see the reason to change that format now.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Page | 2009-10-15 15:25:32 | Re: Client application name |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-10-15 14:53:20 | Re: [PATCH] Largeobject access controls |