On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 02:53:49PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> On balance I agree with Peter's opinion that this isn't worth
> changing. I would be for the patch if the executor had a little
> more freedom of action, but as things stand there's not much
> freedom there.
Thanks for looking
CF: withdr
Justin Pryzby writes:
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 10:26:00AM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 08:39:11AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> In this context, I don't see the point of this change. If you set jit=off
>>> explicitly, then there is no need to clutter the EXPLAIN ou
On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 10:26:00AM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 08:39:11AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On 2020-11-20 17:16, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > It matters if it was planned with jit but executed without jit.
> > >
> > > postgres=# DEALLOCATE p; SET jit=on; SE
On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 08:39:11AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2020-11-20 17:16, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > It matters if it was planned with jit but executed without jit.
> >
> > postgres=# DEALLOCATE p; SET jit=on; SET jit_above_cost=0; prepare p as
> > select from generate_series(1,9); e
On 2020-11-20 17:16, Justin Pryzby wrote:
It matters if it was planned with jit but executed without jit.
postgres=# DEALLOCATE p; SET jit=on; SET jit_above_cost=0; prepare p as select
from generate_series(1,9); explain(format yaml) execute p; SET jit=off;
explain(format yaml) execute p;
Patc
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 04:56:38PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2020-10-17 21:21, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > Added at:https://commitfest.postgresql.org/30/2766/
> >
> > diff --git a/src/backend/commands/explain.c b/src/backend/commands/explain.c
> > index 41317f1837..7345971507 100644
> > ---
On 2020-10-17 21:21, Justin Pryzby wrote:
Added at:https://commitfest.postgresql.org/30/2766/
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/explain.c b/src/backend/commands/explain.c
index 41317f1837..7345971507 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/explain.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/explain.c
@@ -839,7 +839,
On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 at 08:21, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> /* don't print information if no JITing happened */
> - if (!ji || ji->created_functions == 0)
> + if (!ji || (ji->created_functions == 0 &&
> + es->format == EXPLAIN_FORMAT_TEXT))
> retu
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 02:51:38PM +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 14:43, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 02:23:01PM +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> > > On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 14:15, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > > Hmm, I dunno if my opinion counts as "wisdom", but what
Hi,
On 2020-10-15 14:51:38 +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> That's a pretty good point. If we do SET enable_sort TO off; then
> cached plans are unaffected.
In contrast to that we do however use the current work_mem for
execution, I believe. Which could be fairly nasty, if a plan was made
for a huge
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 14:43, Justin Pryzby wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 02:23:01PM +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 14:15, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Hmm, I dunno if my opinion counts as "wisdom", but what I was arguing for
> > > there was that we should print stuff if it's
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 02:23:01PM +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 14:15, Tom Lane wrote:
> > David Rowley writes:
> > > Just for some reference. Some wisdom was shared in [1], which made a
> > > lot of sense to me.
> > > If we apply that, then we just need to decide if displa
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 14:15, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> David Rowley writes:
> > Just for some reference. Some wisdom was shared in [1], which made a
> > lot of sense to me.
> > If we apply that, then we just need to decide if displaying any jit
> > related fields without any jitted expressions is rele
David Rowley writes:
> Just for some reference. Some wisdom was shared in [1], which made a
> lot of sense to me.
> If we apply that, then we just need to decide if displaying any jit
> related fields without any jitted expressions is relevant.
Hmm, I dunno if my opinion counts as "wisdom", but w
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 08:39, Justin Pryzby wrote:
>
> /* don't print information if no JITing happened */
> if (!ji || ji->created_functions == 0)
> return;
>
> This applies even when (es->format != EXPLAIN_FORMAT_TEXT), which I think is
> wrong. Jit use can be de
/* don't print information if no JITing happened */
if (!ji || ji->created_functions == 0)
return;
This applies even when (es->format != EXPLAIN_FORMAT_TEXT), which I think is
wrong. Jit use can be determined by cost, so I think jit details should be
shown in non-t
16 matches
Mail list logo
