On Sat, 2024-09-28 at 00:04 +1200, David Rowley wrote: > On Fri, 27 Sept 2024 at 20:42, Laurenz Albe <laurenz.a...@cybertec.at> wrote: > > 2. The "disabled nodes" are not only shown at the nodes where nodes > > were actually disabled, but also at every nodes above these nodes. > > I'm also not a fan either and I'd like to see this output improved. > > It seems like it's easy enough to implement some logic to detect when > a given node is disabled just by checking if the disable_nodes count > is higher than the sum of the disabled_node field of the node's > children. If there are no children (a scan node) and disabed_nodes > > 0 then it must be disabled. There's even a nice fast path where we > don't need to check the children if disabled_nodes == 0. > > Here's a POC grade patch of how I'd rather see it looking. > > I opted to have a boolean field as I didn't see any need for an > integer count. I also changed things around so we always display the > boolean property in non-text EXPLAIN. Normally, we don't mind being > more verbose there. > > I also fixed a bug in make_sort() where disabled_nodes isn't being set > properly. I'll do an independent patch for that if this goes nowhere.
Thanks, and the patch looks good. Why did you change "Disabled" from an integer to a boolean? If you see a join where two plans were disabled, that's useful information. I would still prefer to see the disabled nodes only in VERBOSE explain, but I'm satisfied if the disabled nodes don't show up all over the place. Yours, Laurenz Albe
