On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 6:04 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > Well. Unless I miss something it doesn't resolve the problem that > started this thread. Namely that it's currently impossible to write > regression using EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, TIMING OFF. COSTS OFF). Which is > worthwhile because it allows to tests some behaviour that's only visible > in actually executed plans (like seing that a subtree wasn't executed).
TBH, I don't particularly care about that. A new flag for turning "summary timing" off would answer the complaint with not too much non-orthogonality ... but I really don't find this use case compelling enough to justify adding a feature to EXPLAIN.
Hmm, was my case above not compelling enough?
This leaves me out in the cold a bit for when it comes to testing inner joins are properly skipped at execution time. I can see no other way to properly verify when the joins are and are not being skipped other than outputting the explain analyze in the test and I can't really imagine it ever getting committed without proper regression tests.
Can you think of some other way that I could test this? Keep in mind there's no trace of the removal in the EXPLAIN without ANALYZE.
