| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Alexey Bashtanov <bashtanov(at)imap(dot)cc>, Emre Hasegeli <emre(at)hasegeli(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: improve transparency of bitmap-only heap scans |
| Date: | 2020-03-30 04:29:29 |
| Message-ID: | 25659.1585542569@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 8:02 PM James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I'm curious if Tom's objection is mostly on the grounds that we should
>> be consistent in what's displayed, or that he thinks the information
>> is likely to be useless.
> Yeah, it would be good if he clarifies his position.
Some of both: it seems like these ought to be consistent, and the
lack of complaints so far about regular index-only scans suggests
that people don't need the info. But perhaps we ought to add
similar info in both places.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Noah Misch | 2020-03-30 04:41:01 | Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-03-30 04:26:52 | Re: snapper vs. HEAD |