| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Dunstan <tom(at)tomd(dot)cc>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, jdealmeidapereira(at)pivotal(dot)io |
| Subject: | Re: Allow auto_explain to log to NOTICE |
| Date: | 2019-01-04 12:49:52 |
| Message-ID: | 20190104124952.GB2067@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 01:06:24PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Do we really want to add user-facing options just to be able to run
> tests? Should we write the tests differently instead?
The take is that the output of the plans generated includes data which
is run-dependent because the duration of the plan is generated
unconditionally. One way to write generic tests considering this
would be to use a TAP test, but I feel that's overdoing it just for
this case.
Being able to control if the plan duration shows up still looks like
an interesting option to me independently of adding tests.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2019-01-04 12:52:15 | Re: Using POPCNT and other advanced bit manipulation instructions |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2019-01-04 12:48:57 | Re: Statement-level Triggers For Uniqueness Checks |