Re: Buffer usage in EXPLAIN and pg_stat_statements (review)

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Buffer usage in EXPLAIN and pg_stat_statements (review)
Date: 2009-10-15 01:44:43
Message-ID: 603c8f070910141844h48aaaa39o3431c441e9c7b19e@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 9:38 PM, Itagaki Takahiro
<itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> My (limited) experience is that it's usually better to get something
>> incremental committed, even if it's not what you really want.  You can
>> always take another crack at the remaining issues later, but if the
>> whole patch gets shot down then you are out of luck.
>
> Yeah, that makes sense. But the partial change should also be
> a "long-term solution" ;-). It is hard to determine whether
> the partial change is a good solution until the whole features
> works as expected (at least partially).

Well, that's an indication that you've chosen too small a piece. But
I don't really believe that a change that affects only core EXPLAIN
and auto_explain is too small a piece to be independently useful. If
it is, the whole feature is probably badly conceived in the first
place...

...Robert

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2009-10-15 01:45:03 Re: CommitFest 2009-09, two weeks on
Previous Message Itagaki Takahiro 2009-10-15 01:38:53 Re: Buffer usage in EXPLAIN and pg_stat_statements (review)