Re: Default gucs for EXPLAIN - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: Default gucs for EXPLAIN
Date
Msg-id 20200603003504.GA28685@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Default gucs for EXPLAIN  (Vik Fearing <vik@postgresfriends.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jun  2, 2020 at 11:58:51PM +0200, Vik Fearing wrote:
> On 6/2/20 10:51 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun  2, 2020 at 09:29:09PM +0200, Vik Fearing wrote:
> >> On 6/2/20 7:25 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >>> I think it would have been helpful if an email explaining this idea for
> >>> discussion would have been posted before a patch was generated and
> >>> posted.
> >>
> >> Why?
> > 
> > Because you often have to go backwards to religitate things in the
> > patch, rather than opening with the design issues.
> 
> 
> Surely that's my problem; and it looks like the only thing I need to
> change in this patch is to remove the guc for ANALYZE.
> 
> 
> > Our TODO list is
> > very clear about this:
> > 
> >     https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Todo
> >     Desirability -> Design -> Implement -> Test -> Review -> Commit
> 
> 
> I can't read everything on this list (far from it), but I don't recall
> any other spontaneous patch being chastised for not having the
> bikeshedders-at-large do the first two steps before the implementer.

Well, you have been around a long time, so I assumed you would know
this, and have seen this in practice.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             https://enterprisedb.com

  The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Kyotaro Horiguchi
Date:
Subject: Re: elog(DEBUG2 in SpinLocked section.
Next
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: Should we remove a fallback promotion? take 2