Re: Review of: explain / allow collecting row counts without timing info

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>,<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>,<robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Review of: explain / allow collecting row counts without timing info
Date: 2012-02-05 05:44:28
Message-ID: 4F2DC2DD0200002500044DE0@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

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