Re: Reduce timing overhead of EXPLAIN ANALYZE using rdtsc?

From: Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com>
To: Lukas Fittl <lukas(at)fittl(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, John Naylor <johncnaylorls(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jakub Wartak <jakub(dot)wartak(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Hannu Krosing <hannuk(at)google(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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>, David Geier <geidav(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Reduce timing overhead of EXPLAIN ANALYZE using rdtsc?
Date: 2026-03-12 21:55:02
Message-ID: CAN4CZFMMFzsPypfXZML-QVxiPi10uvwHXk9yOs0unV=6giaPJw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Were you
> thinking of user-facing documentation, or more on the code side?

I'm not 100% sure, maybe code side is enough. With the current patch,
the behavior is only visible if somebody intentionally tries to make
it visible, and even then it's not really harmful.

In the code it's definitely worth mentioning since it's not trivial,
and stating it also makes it clear that it's not a bug/oversight. It
could be also useful info if another patch later wants to also use
timing_clock_source to keep in mind that users can change it
dynamically.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sami Imseih 2026-03-12 22:06:13 Add missing stats_reset column to pg_statio_all_sequences view
Previous Message Tomas Vondra 2026-03-12 21:54:25 Re: Why clearing the VM doesn't require registering vm buffer in wal record