On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 at 22:55, David G. Johnston
wrote:
>
> With auto_explain you end up producing multiple individual explains, one
> for each top-level query being executed. Each one produced by auto_explain
> which hooks into the point where a top-level query begins execution.
> Running explai
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 at 23:48, Vijaykumar Jain <
vijaykumarjain.git...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> ok, it makes sense for the reason of having auto_explain. but maybe i did
> ask correctly,
> why do we not have the extended flags in auto_explain , in , explain wrt
> nested_statements, and triggers ...
On Sat, Oct 19, 2024 at 10:43 AM Vijaykumar Jain <
vijaykumarjain.git...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i tried to check the code for auto_explain , there is nothing that helps
> understand why it was provided as a separate .
>
Probably because output to log was easier than reworking the internals to
make o
"David G. Johnston" writes:
> On Sat, Oct 19, 2024 at 10:43 AM Vijaykumar Jain <
> vijaykumarjain.git...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> i tried to check the code for auto_explain , there is nothing that helps
>> understand why it was provided as a separate .
> Probably because output to log was easier than
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 at 23:31, Tom Lane wrote:
> "David G. Johnston" writes:
> > On Sat, Oct 19, 2024 at 10:43 AM Vijaykumar Jain <
> > vijaykumarjain.git...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> i tried to check the code for auto_explain , there is nothing that helps
> >> understand why it was provided as a se
Thank you both for the explanations and the link to the discussion of
Pavel's patches.
On Sat, Oct 19, 2024 at 10:05 AM Vijaykumar Jain <
vijaykumarjain.git...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why does auto_explain have extended flags to support nested statements and
> triggers whereas explain does not.
> the objects of concern have the same ownership and access, so it does not
> even sound like
Hi,
Why does auto_explain have extended flags to support nested statements and
triggers whereas explain does not.
the objects of concern have the same ownership and access, so it does not
even sound like a security thing.
or maybe it is just a format/display issue ?
i tried to check the doc, ther
Marcelo Zabani writes:
> Hi, according to the docs, RESET sets the value of a setting to
> "The default value is defined as the value that the parameter would have
> had, if no SET had ever been issued for it in the current session"
This is, I guess, strictly true only for built-in settings.
Cust
On Saturday, October 19, 2024, Marcelo Zabani wrote:
> Hi, according to the docs, RESET sets the value of a setting to
> "The default value is defined as the value that the parameter would have
> had, if no SET had ever been issued for it in the current session"
>
> Which confuses me given that t
Hi, according to the docs, RESET sets the value of a setting to
"The default value is defined as the value that the parameter would have
had, if no SET had ever been issued for it in the current session"
Which confuses me given that the value starts being NULL in the session and
then turns into an
11 matches
Mail list logo
