Tom Lane  wrote:
 
> Yeah, I think we need to preserve that property. Unexpectedly
> executing query (which may have side-effects) is a very dangerous
> thing.  People are used to the idea that ANALYZE == execute, and
> adding random other flags that also cause execution is going to
> burn somebody.
 
+1
 
FWIW, another reason not to use Robert's suggested syntax is that you
get "rows=n" entries with or without the actual run.  You just don't
get the "actual" block to compare to the estimate.  So ROWS as an
option would be very ambiguous.
 
-Kevin

Responses

• Re: Review of: explain / allow collecting row counts without timing info at 2012-02-07 16:29:50 from Robert Haas

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Kohei KaiGai	Date: 2012-02-05 09:09:18
	Subject: Re: [v9.2] Add GUC sepgsql.client_label
Previous:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2012-02-05 03:59:03
	Subject: Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2