On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Tomas Vondra <t...@fuzzy.cz> wrote: > OK, thanks for the explanation. I don't like the idea of subsets as it > IMHO makes it less obvious what options are enabled. For example this > > EXPLAIN (ROWS) query... > > does not immediately show it's actually going to do ANALYZE.
Well, it isn't, if ANALYZE means rows + timing... > I prefer to keep the current 'ANALYZE' definition, i.e. collecting both > row counts and timing data (which is what 99% of people wants anyway), > and an option to disable the timing. > > And the BUFFERS option currently works exactly like that, so defining > ROWS the way you proposed would be inconsistent with the current behavior. > > Sure, we could redefine BUFFERS as a subset, so you could do > > EXPLAIN (ROWS) ... instead of ... EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, TIMING off) > EXPLAIN (BUFFERS) ... instead of ... EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS on) > > but what if someone wants both at the same time? Maybe he could do > > EXPLAIN (ROWS, BUFFERS) > > and treat that as a union of those subsets. I don't think it's worth it. Yeah, I forgot that we'd have to allow that, though I don't think it would be a big deal to fix that. > I surely can live with both solutions (mine or the one you proposed). Let's wait and see if anyone else has an opinion. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
