On 2024/12/14 0:59, Michael Christofides wrote:
> I've pushed the main patch. Woohoo! And thank you. I've already seen quite a lot of positivity around the commit on Twitter[1][2][3]. > I'm not planning on pushing the auto_explain.log_buffers default change unless there's a bit more discussion about it. Much like Guillaume, I'd also be in favour of 0002, but it's nowhere near as important to me. I think most people consider the parameters far more when setting up auto_explain, so I believe far fewer omit buffers by mistake. Also, most cloud providers don't ship with auto_explain on, and the only one I know of that does[4], ships with log_buffers on too. On the plus side, it would be nice to be consistent. But on the downside, it might add a little extra overhead for folks who run auto_explain with log_analyze on, and who opted not to set log_buffers and upgrade without setting it to off explicitly. I am still in favour of the 0002 patch being applied, to avoid confusion and maximise the chance people that don't know about buffers still get them in their plans.
I agree with changing the default value of auto_explain.log_buffers to true. I think that users who know EXPLAIN ANALYZE includes buffers info in the result by default since v18 would expect the buffer info also to be included in auto_explain output as long as log_analyze is enabled. So setting log_buffers to true by default would be less confusing. As for 0002 patch, should the example log output with log_analyze enabled also be updated to show the buffer information? Sorry for reviving this old thread, but while testing the new v18 feature - buffers being shown by default - I had the same thought about auto_explain.log_buffers, so I wanted to chime in. Regards, -- Fujii Masao NTT DATA Japan Corporation
