Hi,
On 2020-01-26 17:53:09 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > I've previously wondered about adding a REGRESS option to EXPLAIN would
> > not actually be a good one, so we can move the magic into that, rather
> > than options that are also otherwise relevant.
>
> I'd be inclined
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2020-01-26 16:54:58 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> ... how are you going to square that desire with not breaking the
>> regression tests?
> Well, that's how we arrived at turning off JIT information when COSTS
> OFF, because that's already something all the EXPLAINs in the r
Hi,
On 2020-01-26 16:54:58 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2020-01-26 15:13:49 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> The other offender is the JIT stuff: it prints if COSTS is on and
> >> there's some JIT activity to report, and otherwise you get nothing.
> >> This is OK for text mode
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2020-01-26 15:13:49 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The other offender is the JIT stuff: it prints if COSTS is on and
>> there's some JIT activity to report, and otherwise you get nothing.
>> This is OK for text mode but it's bogus for the other formats.
>> Since we just rearr
Hi,
On 2020-01-26 15:13:49 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> The other offender is the JIT stuff: it prints if COSTS is on and
> there's some JIT activity to report, and otherwise you get nothing.
> This is OK for text mode but it's bogus for the other formats.
> Since we just rearranged EXPLAIN's JIT outp
I believe that the design intention for EXPLAIN's non-text output
formats is that a given field should appear, or not, depending solely
on the plan shape, EXPLAIN options, and possibly GUC settings.
It's not okay to suppress a field just because it's empty or zero or
otherwise uninteresting, becaus
