> > On 19/3/2025 21:51, Sami Imseih wrote: > >> Why do you think this hook is not redundant? > > what is it redundant with? > > > >> It would be better to add the parameter "type: EXPLAIN_ONLY | > >> ANALYZE_ONLY | BOTH" to the RegisterExtensionExplainOption() routine. > >> This value will be saved inside the ExplainExtensionOption structure and > >> processed by the core inside the ParseExplainOptionList. > > > > hmm, IIUC, what you are describing is flag that will be limited to > > only check if an option can be used with EXPLAIN_ONLY, ANALYZE_ONLY > > or both. But what about if I have a case to check against between other > > extension options? let's say ExtensionAOptionA and ExtensionAoptionB. > > How would that work with the way you are suggesting? > That makes sense. It would be more effective to include the meaningful > example in Robert's extension for v7-0001.
While it will be good to provide an example in v7-0001, I can't see any of the pg_overexplain options needing such validation. > I'm sorry, I was confused; previously, the difficulties faced by > extension developers were always attributed to him (refer to the > discussion on the selectivity hook). However, now you're introducing a > hook for a trivial operation that could simply be resolved at the end of > execution within a per-node hook with tiny inconsistency in output. I'm > pleased to see a change in the narrative. I think you are referring to the idea to put a hook before /* in text format, the first line ends here */ After considering the comments, I do see that was not a good proposal. You are correct, and the per-node hook is enough. -- Sami Imseih Amazon Web Services (AWS)
