| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Lukas Fittl <lukas(at)fittl(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Geier <geidav(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar(dot)ahmad(at)gmail(dot)com>, Maciek Sakrejda <m(dot)sakrejda(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Reduce timing overhead of EXPLAIN ANALYZE using rdtsc? |
| Date: | 2025-11-19 19:36:53 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobAbCwvZMnMPJA9OBzHYbEsGCwCmOHPr0wRVxjkEo7RDQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 11:55 AM Lukas Fittl <lukas(at)fittl(dot)com> wrote:
> Overall, I'm still thinking a GUC might be the way to go, but I don't think anyone else was enthusiastic about that idea :)
Reliable feature auto-detection is the best option, but if that's not
possible, I think the choices are add a GUC or give up on the project
altogether. Using a GUC to deal with platform dependencies is a pretty
reasonable concept -- see, e.g. dynamic_shared_memory_type or
huge_pages or io_method. If we can't autodetect it reliably and we
aren't willing to add a GUC, we're basically saying there's not enough
value here to justify adding a configuration parameter. That's often a
totally reasonable conclusion -- it can easily happen that the
benefits of a platform-specific optimization are too small to make it
worth configuring. But I would have thought that in this case the
benefits might be quite large.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Viktor Holmberg | 2025-11-19 19:43:52 | Re: warning on the current head |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2025-11-19 19:35:11 | Re: should we have a fast-path planning for OLTP starjoins? |