| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: machine-readable explain output |
| Date: | 2009-06-16 14:32:32 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070906160732o16cbc855u692d9865fc3d1357@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Andres Freund<andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> How would you model something like:
> <plans>
> <plan> ... </plan>
> <plan> ... </plan>
> ...
> </plans>
> otherwise?
>
> There are potentially unlimited number of child nodes - AppendNode for
> example can have any number of them. Sure, you can give each <plan> node a
> 'offset=' id, but that doesn't buy much.
> I don't see how that could be much improved by using child-nodes (or even
> worse attributes).
Note that even in this case we DON'T rely on the ordering of the
nodes. The inner <plan> nodes have child nodes which contain their
relationship to the parent.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2009-06-16 14:51:00 | Re: Synch Rep: communication between backends and walsender |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-06-16 14:31:29 | Re: machine-readable explain output |