Re: Expose options to explain? (track_io_timing)

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Expose options to explain? (track_io_timing)
Date: 2014-10-14 17:04:00
Message-ID: 543D5780.3040402@commandprompt.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On 10/14/2014 10:01 AM, Robert Haas wrote:

> Hmm. IIRC, there are only two use cases for I/O timing at present:
> pg_stat_statements (which really only makes sense if it's turned on or
> off system-wide) and EXPLAIN. Rather than inventing more GUC
> machinery, I think we could just add an explain flag called "IO". So
> you could do:
>
> EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, IO) SELECT ....
>
> And that would gather I/O stats even if it's turned off system-wide.
> Or you could do:
>
> EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, IO false) SELECT ....
>
> That can't really be allowed to suppress gathering the I/O stats for
> this query if the sysadmin wants those stats for all queries. But it
> could suppress the print-out.

I think the first one makes the most sense.

JD

--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development
High Availability, Oracle Conversion, @cmdpromptinc
"If we send our children to Caesar for their education, we should
not be surprised when they come back as Romans."

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Lucas Lersch 2014-10-14 17:10:57 Re: Buffer Requests Trace
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2014-10-14 17:02:12 Re: Buffer Requests Trace