| From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | legrand legrand <legrand_legrand(at)hotmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: explain plans with information about (modified) gucs |
| Date: | 2018-12-17 22:10:26 |
| Message-ID: | 1edcee55-ea96-d123-199d-4c5f1fc5003b@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 12/17/18 10:56 PM, legrand legrand wrote:
> what would you think about adding
> search_path
> to that list ?
>
Yeah, I've been thinking about that too. Currently it gets filtered out
because it's in the CLIENT_CONN_STATEMENT group, but the code only
includes QUERY_TUNING_*.
But we don't want to include everything from CLIENT_CONN_STATEMENT,
because that would include various kinds of timeouts, vacuuming
parameters, etc.
And the same issue applies to work_mem, which is in RESOURCES_MEM. And
of course, there's a lot of unrelated stuff in RESOURCES_MEM.
So I guess we'll need to enable QUERY_TUNING_* and then selectively a
couple of individual options from other groups.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-12-17 22:16:55 | Re: explain plans with information about (modified) gucs |
| Previous Message | legrand legrand | 2018-12-17 21:56:20 | Re: explain plans with information about (modified) gucs |