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

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: improve transparency of bitmap-only heap scans
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1LTBJ=HjeSeyvH9qgfKunLqy6DRNY5TtivP5VA42L+Ebg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: improve transparency of bitmap-only heap scans  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 9:59 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

Fair enough.  I have marked this CF entry as RWF.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Justin Pryzby
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Opclass parameters
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Keeps tracking the uniqueness with UniqueKey