* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > I'd been a bit suspicious of the recent patch to add $SUBJECT > without the other pre-execution components, but it just now > occurred to me that there's at least one reason why this might > be a significant omission: any delay caused by waiting to acquire > locks on the query's tables will be spent in the parser.
[...]
> I'm not sure if it'd be appropriate to add all of these measurements
> as separate printout lines; arguably we should just fold them into
> "planning time".
>
> Thoughts?
Having a distinction between "time spent waiting on locks" (even
just "waited on locks" as a boolean) would be very nice, imv. Having
the time spent would be best, provided it doesn't add too much. As for
individual print-out lines, perhaps we should consider putting them on
the same line? Maybe:
Planning time X.Y (waiting for locks: X.Y, other stuff: X.Y).
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
