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.
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.
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|