| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: further explain changes |
| Date: | 2010-01-24 17:30:26 |
| Message-ID: | 27825.1264354226@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 12:06 AM, Jaime Casanova
>> why not let it go in ANALYZE, just as the sort info
> It's kinda long-winded - it adds like 4 extra lines for each hash
> join. I don't think I want to add that much clutter to regular E-A
> output.
Well, that would only happen if you're deliberately obtuse about the
formatting. The sort code manages to fit all the extra on one line,
and I don't see why hash couldn't.
I'd vote for just adding it in the exact same cases that sort adds extra
info. -1 for either adding a new option or changing the meaning of the
ones that are there.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-01-24 17:32:07 | Re: tab completion for prepared transactions? |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-01-24 17:29:58 | Re: tab completion for prepared transactions? |