On 21 May 2016 16:07, "David G. Johnston"
wrote:
> And most of the time the choice of options is totally arbitrary based
upon the mood and experience of the user, so what's it matter if they saved
a few keystrokes and set the GUC in the .psqlrc file?
>
>> I'm predicting users that will have
>> t
"David G. Johnston" writes:
> On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Euler Taveira
> wrote:
>> I wouldn't like a command output controlled by GUC. EXPLAIN is used a
>> lot in bug/performance reports.
> âAnd most of the time the choice of options is totally arbitrary based upon
> the mood and experi
On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Euler Taveira
wrote:
> On 20-05-2016 20:34, Robert Haas wrote:
> > Hmm, my experience is different. I use EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, VERBOSE) a
> > lot, but EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS) only rarely. I wonder if a GUC is
> > the way to go.
> >
> I wouldn't like a command o
On 20-05-2016 20:34, Robert Haas wrote:
> Hmm, my experience is different. I use EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, VERBOSE) a
> lot, but EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS) only rarely. I wonder if a GUC is
> the way to go.
>
I wouldn't like a command output controlled by GUC. EXPLAIN is used a
lot in bug/performance re
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 6:24 PM, Евгений Шишкин wrote:
>> On 20 May 2016, at 01:12, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm a bit inclined to think that what this is really about is that we
>> made the wrong call on the BUFFERS option, and that it should default
>> to ON just like COSTS and TIMING do. Yeah, that
> On May 19, 2016, at 5:24 PM, Евгений Шишкин wrote:
>
>
>> On 20 May 2016, at 01:12, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>
>> I'm a bit inclined to think that what this is really about is that we
>> made the wrong call on the BUFFERS option, and that it should default
>> to ON just like COSTS and TIMING do
> On 20 May 2016, at 01:12, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>
> I'm a bit inclined to think that what this is really about is that we
> made the wrong call on the BUFFERS option, and that it should default
> to ON just like COSTS and TIMING do. Yeah, that would be an incompatible
> change, but that's what m
On 20/05/16 10:11, David G. Johnston wrote:
[...]
EXPAIN ABCTV (might need permission to document this variation though)
What has an Australian Broadcast Corporation Television got to do with
this??? :-)
[...]
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make c
=?utf-8?B?0JXQstCz0LXQvdC40Lkg0KjQuNGI0LrQuNC9?= writes:
>> On 19 May 2016, at 22:59, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm not sure this is well thought out. It would mean for example that
>> we could never implement EXPLAIN options that are mutually exclusive
>> ... at least, not without having to redefine A
On Thursday, May 19, 2016, David Christensen wrote:
>
> > On May 19, 2016, at 3:17 PM, Евгений Шишкин > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On 19 May 2016, at 22:59, Tom Lane >
> wrote:
> >>
> >> David Christensen > writes:
> >>> This simple patch adds “ALL” as an EXPLAIN option as shorthand for
> “EXPLAIN (ANA
> On May 19, 2016, at 3:17 PM, Евгений Шишкин wrote:
>
>
>> On 19 May 2016, at 22:59, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> David Christensen writes:
>>> This simple patch adds “ALL” as an EXPLAIN option as shorthand for “EXPLAIN
>>> (ANALYZE, VERBOSE, COSTS, TIMING, BUFFERS)” for usability.
>>
>> I'm not
Евгений Шишкин wrote:
> Maybe EVERYTHING would be ok.
> But it is kinda long word to type.
There's never need to run the EXPLAIN (EVERTHING) command; you already
know that the answer is 42.
--
Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote
> On 19 May 2016, at 22:59, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> David Christensen writes:
>> This simple patch adds “ALL” as an EXPLAIN option as shorthand for “EXPLAIN
>> (ANALYZE, VERBOSE, COSTS, TIMING, BUFFERS)” for usability.
>
> I'm not sure this is well thought out. It would mean for example that
> w
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> I'm not sure this is well thought out. It would mean for example that
> we could never implement EXPLAIN options that are mutually exclusive
> ... at least, not without having to redefine ALL as all-except-something.
> Non-boolean options woul
David Christensen writes:
> This simple patch adds âALLâ as an EXPLAIN option as shorthand for
> âEXPLAIN (ANALYZE, VERBOSE, COSTS, TIMING, BUFFERS)â for usability.
I'm not sure this is well thought out. It would mean for example that
we could never implement EXPLAIN options that are mu
15 matches
Mail list logo
