On Sat, Nov 05, 2022 at 10:43:07AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Justin Pryzby writes:
> > You set the patch to "waiting on author", which indicates that there's
> > no need for further input or review. But, I think that's precisely
> > what's needed - without input from more people, what could I do
Justin Pryzby writes:
> You set the patch to "waiting on author", which indicates that there's
> no need for further input or review. But, I think that's precisely
> what's needed - without input from more people, what could I do to
> progress the patch ? I don't think it's reasonable to put
On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 11:46:03AM +0100, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> "explain_regress" reduces the EXPLAIN options you need for regression tests.
> This is somewhat useful, but not a big win. Also, it will make backpatching
> regression tests slightly harder for the next 5 years.
But it doesn't
Thanks for the updated patch set!
On Fri, 2022-10-28 at 17:59 -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
>
> > 0004, 0005, 0006, 0007: EXPLAIN (MACHINE)
> >
> > I think it is confusing that these are included in this patch set.
> > EXPLAIN (MACHINE OFF) is similar to "explain_regress = on", only it goes
On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 03:49:14PM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> On Thu, 2022-10-20 at 21:09 -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > Rebased.
>
> I had a look at the patch set.
Thanks for looking
> @@ -2288,6 +2288,7 @@ regression_main(int argc, char *argv[],
> fputs("log_lock_waits = on\n",
On Thu, 2022-10-20 at 21:09 -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Rebased.
I had a look at the patch set.
It applies and builds cleanly and passes the regression tests.
0001: Add GUC: explain_regress
I like the idea of the "explain_regress" GUC. That should simplify
the regression tests.
---
Rebased.
BTW, I think it may be that the GUC should be marked PGDLLIMPORT ?
>From 12a605ca84bf21439e4ae51cc3f3a891b3cb4989 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Justin Pryzby
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2020 21:17:10 -0600
Subject: [PATCH 1/7] Add GUC: explain_regress
This changes the defaults for explain to:
On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 03:38:53PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 9:54 AM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > Unfortunately, "COSTS OFF" breaks postgres_fdw remote_estimate. If
> > > specifying
> > > "COSTS ON" in postgres_fdw.c is considered to be a poor fix , then I
> > >
On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 9:54 AM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> I'm renaming this thread for better visibility, since buffers is a small,
> optional part of the patches I sent.
>
> I made a CF entry here.
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/36/3409/
>
> On Wed, Dec 01, 2021 at 06:58:20PM -0600, Justin
@cfbot: rebased
>From 099cb8cef38087917a060f86bdb06224d96c3f69 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Justin Pryzby
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2020 21:17:10 -0600
Subject: [PATCH 1/7] Add GUC: explain_regress
This changes the defaults for explain to: costs off, timing off, summary off.
It'd be reasonable to use
On Sat, Feb 26, 2022 at 03:07:20PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Rebased over ebf6c5249b7db525e59563fb149642665c88f747.
> It looks like that patch handles only query_id, and this patch also tries to
> handle a bunch of other stuff.
>
> If it's helpful, feel free to kick this patch to a future CF.
Rebased over ebf6c5249b7db525e59563fb149642665c88f747.
It looks like that patch handles only query_id, and this patch also tries to
handle a bunch of other stuff.
If it's helpful, feel free to kick this patch to a future CF.
>From e58fffedc6f1cf471228fb3234faba35898678c3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
I'm renaming this thread for better visibility, since buffers is a small,
optional part of the patches I sent.
I made a CF entry here.
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/36/3409/
On Wed, Dec 01, 2021 at 06:58:20PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 01:09:54PM -0600, Justin
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 01, 2021 at 06:58:20PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
>
> The attached patch series now looks like this (some minor patches are not
> included in this list):
This version of the patchset doesn't apply anymore:
http://cfbot.cputube.org/patch_36_3409.log
=== Applying patches on top
On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 01:09:54PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Some time ago, I had a few relevant patches:
> 1) add explain(REGRESS) which is shorthand for (BUFFERS OFF, TIMING OFF,
> COSTS OFF, SUMMARY OFF)
> 2) add explain(MACHINE) which elides machine-specific output from explain;
>for
I think it *should* be enabled for planning, since that makes the default
> easier to understand and document, and it makes a user's use of "explain"
> easier.
I’d be keen to see BUFFERS off by default with EXPLAIN, and on by default
with EXPLAIN ANALYZE.
The SUMMARY flag was implemented that
On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 02:58:07PM -0800, Nikolay Samokhvalov wrote:
> Re-reading the thread [1] (cannot answer there – don't have those emails in
> my box anymore), I see that there was strong support for enabling BUFFERS
> in EXPLAIN ANALYZE by default. And there were patches. Commitfest entry
On Sat, Nov 13, 2021 at 8:18 AM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> On 11/12/21 23:58, Nikolay Samokhvalov wrote:
> > Re-reading the thread [1] (cannot answer there – don't have those emails
> > in my box anymore),
>
> You can download the message as mbox and import it into your client
> (pretty much any
On 11/12/21 11:58 PM, Nikolay Samokhvalov wrote:
> Re-reading the thread [1] (cannot answer there – don't have those emails in
> my box anymore), I see that there was strong support for enabling BUFFERS
> in EXPLAIN ANALYZE by default. And there were patches. Commitfest entry [2]
> was marked
On 11/12/21 23:58, Nikolay Samokhvalov wrote:
Re-reading the thread [1] (cannot answer there – don't have those emails
in my box anymore),
You can download the message as mbox and import it into your client
(pretty much any client supports that, I think).
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
Re-reading the thread [1] (cannot answer there – don't have those emails in
my box anymore), I see that there was strong support for enabling BUFFERS
in EXPLAIN ANALYZE by default. And there were patches. Commitfest entry [2]
was marked Rejected because there were questions to the implementation
21 matches
Mail list logo
