Re: EXPLAIN ANALYZE

From: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: EXPLAIN ANALYZE
Date: 2006-12-11 18:23:48
Message-ID: 457DA234.6010102@samurai.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah ... a protocol change is *painful*, especially if you really want
> clients to behave in a significantly new way.

A backward-incompatible protocol change is painful, sure, but ISTM we
could implement what Greg describes as a straightforward extension to
the V3 protocol. Then the backend could just avoid sending the query
progress information to < V4 protocol clients.

-Neil

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Neil Conway 2006-12-11 18:26:40 Re: EXPLAIN ANALYZE
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-12-11 18:18:27 Re: EXPLAIN ANALYZE