Re: auto_explain contrib moudle

From: Martin Pihlak <martin(dot)pihlak(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: auto_explain contrib moudle
Date: 2008-11-08 10:18:57
Message-ID: 49156791.4000005@gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Jeff Davis wrote:
> I still don't understand why this psql patch is desirable. Who sets
> their client_min_messages to LOG in psql? And if they do, why would they
> expect different behavior that they always got from the already-existing
> GUC log_min_duration_statement?
>
I know a few ;) In my environment the auto-explain is especially useful when
used from within psql. Server logs are not always easy to get to, and it is
difficult to extract the interesting bits (large files and lots of log traffic).

For me the primary use of auto-explain would be interactive troubleshooting.
The troublesome statements usually involve several nested function calls and
are tedious to trace manually. With auto-explain I fire up psql, load the
module, set the client log level, run the statements and immediately see
what's going on. I bet that lot of the developers and QA folk would use it
similarly.

You are of course right about the log_min_duration_statement, also the
log_executor_stats etc. behave similarly. So indeed, the "ignore notices" patch
is not necessarily part of auto-explain.

Regards,
Martin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2008-11-08 10:22:09 Re: pg_stop_backup wait bug fix
Previous Message KaiGai Kohei 2008-11-08 09:58:51 Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1197)