| From: | Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: generic options for explain |
| Date: | 2009-05-25 23:50:36 |
| Message-ID: | 4136ffa0905251650k5065dcc2nd5b229571c86e4d6@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 11:32 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Admittedly this is a bit inconvenient, but the point is that the
> functionality does exist. There is no need to have a built-in
> version of this function unless we get significant advantages
> from having it built-in, and right now I'm not seeing those.
I assume people don't want the *text* of the current output format but
the actual values in separate columns. So you could do things like
accumulate the data in a table and later use sql to search for queries
using specific indexes or where estimates are off etc.
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-05-25 23:59:11 | Re: usability of pg_get_function_arguments |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-05-25 23:33:19 | Re: generic options for explain |