Re: Allow auto_explain to log to NOTICE - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject Re: Allow auto_explain to log to NOTICE
Date
Msg-id 67101522-39d2-e302-92f1-b62b6d762a56@2ndQuadrant.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Allow auto_explain to log to NOTICE  (Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>)
Responses Re: Allow auto_explain to log to NOTICE  (Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>)
List pgsql-hackers

On 07/17/2018 02:03 PM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 17 Jul 2018, at 19:11, Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 07/17/2018 12:04 PM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>> Since DEBUG is not a defined loglevel, it seems superfluous to include it here.
>>> It’s also omitted from the documentation so it should probably be omitted from
>>> here.
>>>
>>> +       {"debug", DEBUG2, true},
>> I treated this like we do for client_min_messages and log_min_messages - the alias is there but I don;t think we
documentit either.
 
>>
>> I don't mind removing it, was just trying to be consistent. It seems odd that we would accept it in one place but
notanother.
 
> Ooh..  I didn’t know that alias existed and didn’t find it when poking at the
> code.  In that case I agree with you, the alias should stay so I withdraw that
> comment.  I learned something new today =)


Committed with the doc fix belatedly.



>>>> I haven't added tests for auto_explain - I think that would be useful
>>>> but it's a separate project.
>>> Agreeing that this would be beneficial, the attached patch (to apply on top of
>>> the patch in question) takes a stab at adding tests for this new functionality.
>>>
>>> In order to test plan output we need to support COSTS in the explain output, so
>>> a new GUC auto_explain.log_costs is added.  We also need to not print the
>>> duration, so as a hack this patch omits the duration if auto_explain.log_timing
>>> is set to off and auto_explain.log_analyze is set off.  This is a hack and not
>>> a nice overloading, but it seems overkill to add a separate GUC just to turn
>>> off the duration, any better ideas on how support omitting the duration?
>> Great, I'll check it out.
> I’m not sure it’s worth adding this much to the code just to be able to test
> it, but it seemed like a good excercise to write to have something to reason
> about.
>


I think it probably is, buit I'm not very happy about the hack, so I 
didn't commit it.  Please submit this to the next commitfest, possibly 
with a nicer way of managing the duration logging.

cheers

andrew

-- 
Andrew Dunstan                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Bizarre behavior in libpq's searching of ~/.pgpass
Next
From: Fabien COELHO
Date:
Subject: Re: Doc patch: add RECURSIVE to bookindex