| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Default gucs for EXPLAIN |
| Date: | 2020-05-26 06:38:35 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwaV-3YJK+=FHV=kyALLi3-cm2DVmWv6eHA0Czy8Y83imQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Saturday, May 23, 2020, Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org> wrote:
>
>
> > Do we really want default_explain_analyze ?
> > It sounds like bad news that EXPLAIN DELETE might or might not remove
> rows
> > depending on the state of a variable.
>
> I have had sessions where not using ANALYZE was the exception, not the
> rule. I would much prefer to type EXPLAIN (ANALYZE OFF) in those cases.
>
Not sure about the feature as a whole but i’m strongly against having a GUC
exist that conditions whether a query is actually executed.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2020-05-26 06:51:42 | Re: Default gucs for EXPLAIN |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2020-05-26 06:30:12 | Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions |