Re: improve transparency of bitmap-only heap scans - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: improve transparency of bitmap-only heap scans
Date
Msg-id 25659.1585542569@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: improve transparency of bitmap-only heap scans  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: improve transparency of bitmap-only heap scans  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 8:02 PM James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm curious if Tom's objection is mostly on the grounds that we should
>> be consistent in what's displayed, or that he thinks the information
>> is likely to be useless.

> Yeah, it would be good if he clarifies his position.

Some of both: it seems like these ought to be consistent, and the
lack of complaints so far about regular index-only scans suggests
that people don't need the info.  But perhaps we ought to add
similar info in both places.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: snapper vs. HEAD
Next
From: Noah Misch
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?