From: | torikoshia <torikoshia(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Record queryid when auto_explain.log_verbose is on |
Date: | 2023-01-26 13:00:04 |
Message-ID: | 87c3d6f09bd0f4d3d96292dca6eeb780@oss.nttdata.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2023-01-26 12:40, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 04:46:36PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Thanks. Will check and probably apply on HEAD.
>
> Done, after adding one test case with compute_query_id=regress and
> applying some indentation.
> --
> Michael
Thanks!
>> On 2023-01-23 09:35, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> ExplainPrintTriggers() is kind of different because there is
>>> auto_explain_log_triggers. Still, we could add a flag in
>>> ExplainState
>>> deciding if the triggers should be printed, so as it would be
>>> possible
>>> to move ExplainPrintTriggers() and ExplainPrintJITSummary() within
>>> ExplainPrintPlan(), as well? The same kind of logic could be applied
>>> for the planning time and the buffer usage if these are tracked in
>>> ExplainState rather than being explicit arguments of
>>> ExplainOnePlan().
>>> Not to mention that this reduces the differences between
>>> ExplainOneUtility() and ExplainOnePlan().
I'll work on this next.
--
Regards,
--
Atsushi Torikoshi
NTT DATA CORPORATION
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nikita Malakhov | 2023-01-26 13:08:11 | Re: Inconsistency in vacuum behavior |
Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2023-01-26 12:27:43 | wrong Append/MergeAppend elision? |