| From: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me> |
| Cc: | Lukas Fittl <lukas(at)fittl(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: EXPLAIN: showing ReadStream / prefetch stats |
| Date: | 2026-04-07 19:42:39 |
| Message-ID: | CAAKRu_ZKCGgm=hVmuSLdsQ4n8dGDdQX-A2MzLCUezj-O+xFRHw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 7, 2026 at 1:34 PM Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me> wrote:
>
> On 4/7/26 18:07, Melanie Plageman wrote:
>
> > I see I had bitmapheapscan use
> > if (!node->ss.ps.instrument || pcxt->nworkers == 0)
> > return;
> >
> > while seq scan uses
> > if (!estate->es_instrument || pcxt->nworkers == 0)
> > return;
> >
> > That does seem worth being consistent about. Though the estate one is
> > probably better to use and changing bitmapheapscan in this commit
> > might be noisy... I don't feel strongly either way.
>
> I'm not sure this is just a question of consistency, because BHS may
> need the shared instrumentation even if (es_instrument = 0), no? While
> the seqscan/tidrange scan only need it with EXPLAIN(IO).
>
> So I think the two nodes should check
>
> ((estate->es_instrument & INSTRUMENT_IO) == 0)
Makes sense to me.
I skimmed v14 quite quickly and LGTM.
- Melanie
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Treat | 2026-04-07 19:43:50 | Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently] |
| Previous Message | Matthias van de Meent | 2026-04-07 19:38:37 | Re: Better shared data structure management and resizable shared data structures |