| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Chantal Keller <chantal(dot)keller(at)universite-paris-saclay(dot)fr> |
| Subject: | Re: Improving EXPLAIN's display of SubPlan nodes |
| Date: | 2024-03-19 00:03:20 |
| Message-ID: | 3717916.1710806600@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 23:19, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> After thinking a bit more, I understood what was bothering me about
>> that notation: it looks too much like a call of a user-defined
>> function named "rescan()". I think we'd be better off with the
>> all-caps "RESCAN()".
> Or perhaps move the parentheses, and write "(rescan SubPlan N)" or
> "(reset SubPlan N)". Dunno.
Oh, I like that! It seems rather parallel to the existing "hashed"
annotation. If I had it to do over, I'd likely do the "hashed"
bit differently --- but as the proposal currently stands, we are
not changing "hashed", so we might as well double down on that.
I won't update the patch right now, but "(rescan SubPlan N)"
seems like a winner to me.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chapman Flack | 2024-03-19 00:26:33 | Re: Java : Postgres double precession issue with different data format text and binary |
| Previous Message | jian he | 2024-03-19 00:00:00 | doc issues in event-trigger-matrix.html |