Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> It seems a little weird to call it a "cost" ... but maybe that >> ship has sailed given how we're treating the planning-time item.
> Maybe we could make it be controlled by TIMING. Seems like it fits > well-enough there. Yeah, I thought about that too; but that sacrifices capability in the name of terminological consistency. The point of TIMING OFF is to not pay the very high overhead of per-node timing calls ... but that doesn't mean you don't want the overall runtime. And it might not be convenient to get it via client-side measurement. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers