Re: Proposals for EXPLAIN: rename ANALYZE to EXECUTE and extend VERBOSE - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Guillaume Lelarge
Subject Re: Proposals for EXPLAIN: rename ANALYZE to EXECUTE and extend VERBOSE
Date
Msg-id CAECtzeUWiA+FNq0qGp94Ez4UAwbEZyB7avTqKDs6wkPhU56mpw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Proposals for EXPLAIN: rename ANALYZE to EXECUTE and extend VERBOSE  (Nikolay Samokhvalov <samokhvalov@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Proposals for EXPLAIN: rename ANALYZE to EXECUTE and extend VERBOSE
List pgsql-hackers
Hello,

Le mar. 10 déc. 2024 à 03:57, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> a écrit :
On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 at 08:30, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info> wrote:
> OK, I'm fine with this. v4 patch attached with one plan showing read, written, and dirtied buffers.

Today I spent more time polishing this patch. There were a few cases
in the docs that displayed EXPLAIN ANALYZE output that you'd not
adjusted to include the buffers output or adjusted to do BUFFERS OFF.
I think I've got all these now. Tom went to some effort to fix some
outdated EXPLAIN outputs for v17 in 5caa05749, so I think we owe it to
him not to let these go out of date so soon after that change.


You're right and I completely forgot to check the whole documentation. I just looked at perform.sgml which was the obvious file for explain plans. Anyway, sorry about this, and thanks a lot for your work on this patch.

I also was thinking again about what Robert mentioned about
auto_explain.log_buffers should now also be on by default.  I'm less
certain than him about this change. It seems like a separate
consideration that we could apply many of the same arguments for the
main change to.  In any case, I extracted that change from the 0001
patch and put it in a 0002 patch as it doesn't seem like something
that should be a sidenote in the commit message. I felt doing that
increases the chances that it would be overlooked in the release
notes.

I was very close to pushing 0001 today, but will hold off until
tomorrow to see if anyone has final comments.


No more comments. I'm fine with both patches.
 
For 0002, I'd really like to see a bit more justification for it.  For
the record, I'm not against 0002, it's just that my personal arguments
for wanting 0001 don't apply to 0002.


I guess consistency is the key word here. But I agree that 0001 is the one that's really important to me.

Thanks again for your work on this.


--
Guillaume.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Shubham Khanna
Date:
Subject: Re: Adding a '--two-phase' option to 'pg_createsubscriber' utility.
Next
From: "Andrey M. Borodin"
Date:
Subject: Re: bt_index_parent_check and concurrently build indexes