Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@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
