On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 1:28 AM, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takah...@oss.ntt.co.jp> wrote: >> (ii) format: why does text output format have less counters than the other >> ones? > > That's because lines will be too long for text format. I think the > three values in it are the most important and useful ones.
I disagree. I objected to showing only part of the information when I looked at this patch last CommitFest, and I object again now. I do *NOT* want to have to use JSON or XML to get at the counters you've arbitrarily decided are not interesting to me. I think with a little creativity we can certainly get these into the text format, and I'm willing to help with that. In fact, if you want, I'll pick up this patch and make it my first commit, though since you're now a committer as well perhaps you'd prefer to do it yourself. >> (v) accumulative: i don't remember if we discussed it but is there a reason >> the number of buffers isn't accumulative? We already have cost and time that >> are both accumulative. I saw BufferUsageAccumDiff() function but didn't try >> to >> figure out why it isn't accumulating or passing the counters to parent nodes. > > It's reasonable. I'll change so if no objections. +1 to change it. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
