Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
>> This patch looked good, in general, to me. �I added a few documentation
>> updates and a comment, but it's a very straight-forward patch as far as
>> I can tell. �Passes all regressions and my additional testing.
> I have not looked at the code for this patch at all as yet, but just
> as a general user comment - I really, really want this. It's one of
> about, uh, two pieces of information that the EXPLAIN output doesn't
> give you that is incredibly important for troubleshooting.
What's the other one?
The main problem I've got with this patch is that there's no place to
shoehorn the information into the textual EXPLAIN format without
breaking a lot of expectations (and hence code --- it's insane to
imagine that any significant amount of client-side code has been
rewritten to make use of xml/json output yet). It would be nice to know
what other requests are likely to be coming down the pike before we
decide exactly how we're going to break things.
regards, tom lane
