| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <greg(dot)stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: generic options for explain |
| Date: | 2009-05-26 19:25:41 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070905261225t3e4c05caxaad9587e223b42d5@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Greg Stark <greg(dot)stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> So the real elephant in the room is that the existing explain code is
>> not really designed to be extensible, configurable, or to be printed
>> in different formats.
>
> These are implementation details ;-). Let's get a definition that
> everyone can sign off on, and then worry about what has to be done
> to the code to make it happen. Even if we end up throwing away and
> rewriting all of explain.c, that's not *that* much code.
I'm actually not sure there's a whole lot to hash out... I was going
to take a crack at writing some code.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-05-26 19:33:47 | Re: generic options for explain |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-05-26 19:23:20 | Re: generic options for explain |