| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Open Item: Should non-text EXPLAIN always show properties? |
| Date: | 2020-06-25 19:46:30 |
| Message-ID: | 2290199.1593114390@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:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 12:33 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I think the right way to think about this is that we are building
>> an output data structure according to a schema that should be fixed
>> for any particular plan shape. If event X happened zero times in
>> a given execution, but it could have happened in a different execution
>> of the same plan, then we should print X with a zero count. If X
>> could not happen period in this plan, we should omit X's entry.
> Do we print zeroes for memory usage when all sorts ended up spilling
> to disk then?
I did not claim that the pre-existing code adheres to this model
completely faithfully ;-). But we ought to have a clear mental
picture of what it is we're trying to achieve. If you don't like
the above design, propose a different one.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2020-06-25 19:56:07 | Re: Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2020-06-25 19:41:55 | Re: should libpq also require TLSv1.2 by default? |