Re: pg_plan_advice

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_plan_advice
Date: 2026-03-18 22:57:59
Message-ID: CA+TgmoY46SyAp8VgFD9hVxz+yNdfxKm_Xy=yUO3t9YMQs541mw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 6:43 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Well, avocet is producing the output you want, but I think the rest
> are behaving correctly given the way the script is written.

Yeah, this goes back to my "that's embarrassing" comment: obviously, I
really did not proofread this well at all.

> Anyway, I confirm that the patched output is stable with
> debug_discard_caches = 1, so LGTM.

Yeah, I also tested that here. Glad it works that way for you also.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Zsolt Parragi 2026-03-18 23:06:59 Re: Row pattern recognition
Previous Message Daniel Gustafsson 2026-03-18 22:51:00 Re: Serverside SNI support in libpq