From: | Amul Sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Skip temporary table schema name from explain-verbose output. |
Date: | 2021-04-29 07:16:43 |
Message-ID: | CAAJ_b96yNYrnURin4ae7rNRZV+=fV83KT6TnOUPn7sNusiy8yg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 7:56 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> >> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 7:08 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> >> <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail
> >> Make sense, we would lose the ability to differentiate temporary
> >> tables from the auto_explain logs.
>
> > There's no useful differentiation that can be done with the temp
> > schema name.
>
I see.
> Agreed.
>
> > I would say it makes sense to remove them -- except perhaps it makes
> > it harder to parse explain output.
>
> I don't think we should remove them. However, it could make sense to
> print the "pg_temp" alias instead of the real schema name when we
> are talking about myTempNamespace. Basically try to make that alias
> a bit less leaky.
+1, let's replace it by "pg_temp" -- did the same in that attached 0001 patch.
Also, I am wondering if we need a similar kind of handling in psql
'\d' meta-command as well? I did trial changes in the 0002 patch, but
I am not very sure about it & a bit skeptical for code change as
well. Do let me know if you have any suggestions/thoughts or if we
don't want to, so please ignore that patch, thanks.
Regards,
Amul
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
0002-WIP-POC-PSQL-change-temp-table-description.patch | application/x-patch | 2.2 KB |
0001-Hide-internal-temp-schema-name.patch | application/x-patch | 2.0 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2021-04-29 07:31:54 | Re: [PATCH] Identify LWLocks in tracepoints |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2021-04-29 07:14:22 | Re: SQL-standard function body |