Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I have no great objection to making both COSTS OFF and TIMING OFF suppress
>> the "planning time" output, if that's the consensus. I would object to
>> taking away that behavior of COSTS OFF, because of the implications for
>> back-patching EXPLAIN queries in regression tests.
>>
>> Another possibility, which would introduce less non-orthogonality into
>> the switch design, is to remove the connection to COSTS OFF but say that
>> planning time is only printed when execution time is also printed (ie,
>> only in EXPLAIN ANALYZE). This seems to me that it would not be removing
>> much functionality, because if you just did a plain EXPLAIN then you can
>> take the client-side runtime (psql \timing) as a close-enough estimate
>> of planning time.
> That'd be fine with me. Making it controlled by COSTS and/or TIMING
> would be OK with me, too. But let's do *something*.
After sleeping on it, the second idea seems cleaner to me: it removes one
wart rather than adding a second one. If there are no objections, I'll
go make it so.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
