Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From James Coleman
Subject Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort)
Date
Msg-id CAAaqYe_Rr4o24RdixZqStymRed5LeUzcq19HdeCXXhpLs90tpg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 5:53 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com> writes:
> I'm looking at this now, and realized that at least for parallel plans the
> current patch tracks the tuplesort instrumentation whether or not an
> EXPLAIN ANALYZE is in process.

> Is this fairly standard for executor nodes? Or is it expected to condition
> some of this tracking based on whether or not an ANALYZE is running?

No, it's entirely not standard.  Maybe you could make an argument that
it's too cheap to bother making it conditional, but without a convincing
argument for that, it needs to be conditional.

That's what I figured, but as I mentioned I've having trouble figuring out how the fact that an analyze is in flight is determined. I assume it's something that lives of the EState or similar, but I'm not seeing anything obvious.

Thanks
James

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Aleksei Ivanov
Date:
Subject: Re: Proposal: PqSendBuffer removal
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort)