| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Rafia Sabih <rafia(dot)pghackers(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Shaun Thomas <shaun(dot)thomas(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort) |
| Date: | 2020-03-05 22:52:52 |
| Message-ID: | 13718.1583448772@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I'm looking at this now, and realized that at least for parallel plans the
> current patch tracks the tuplesort instrumentation whether or not an
> EXPLAIN ANALYZE is in process.
> Is this fairly standard for executor nodes? Or is it expected to condition
> some of this tracking based on whether or not an ANALYZE is running?
No, it's entirely not standard. Maybe you could make an argument that
it's too cheap to bother making it conditional, but without a convincing
argument for that, it needs to be conditional.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2020-03-05 22:55:04 | Re: pgbench: option delaying queries till connections establishment? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-03-05 22:46:44 | Re: Allowing ALTER TYPE to change storage strategy |