Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort)

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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
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

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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