On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 7:29 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 3:09 PM Maciek Sakrejda wrote:
> > +1, this seems like it could be very useful. A somewhat related issue
> > is being able to tie plan nodes back to the query text: it can be hard
> > to understand the planner's decisi
On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 12:03 PM Maciek Sakrejda wrote:
> That may be due to your extensive experience with Postgres and EXPLAIN plans.
Yes, that is very possible. All things being equal, it helps to have
done something a lot of times.
> Fair enough, although the people trying to make sense of E
On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 3:09 PM Maciek Sakrejda wrote:
> +1, this seems like it could be very useful. A somewhat related issue
> is being able to tie plan nodes back to the query text: it can be hard
> to understand the planner's decisions if it's not even clear what part
> of the query it's makin
On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 2:45 PM Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Thanks for the overview. I don't have any immediate feedback, but it
> sounds like it might be related to the "making planner decisions clear"
> session from the unconference ...
>
> The basic premise of that session was about how to give users
+1, this seems like it could be very useful. A somewhat related issue
is being able to tie plan nodes back to the query text: it can be hard
to understand the planner's decisions if it's not even clear what part
of the query it's making decisions about. I'm sure this is not an easy
problem in gener
On 5/19/25 20:01, Robert Haas wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A couple of people at pgconf.dev seemed to want to know more about my
> ongoing plan shape work, so here are the patches I have currently.
> This is a long way from something that actually looks like a usable
> feature, but
