pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Rafia Sabih <rafia.pghackers@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Shaun Thomas <shaun.thomas@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru>
Cc: PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort)
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2020 17:52:52 -0500
Message-ID: <13718.1583448772@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAaqYe_kpBUEkKXLRYfspu05p0wgj_n3_tORStDfCvLUpWUbRA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAaqYe9szJ9=a-ayZUuLbV8rBh3YYgxtCHzdh5Mo2xMS7NL=rQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20190721113422.hjubqs45xxpnldn7@development>
	<20190730001711.hprrcx3ntk57wuqv@development>
	<CA+FpmFfEJZ=obUpjgXO5u3T1yzqPh3CPsyfjhEN9_L31NDPHqA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20190904191710.gogtnktjbvtg5zq3@development>
	<20190909215538.42hrv6j4z5ztcft4@development>
	<CAAaqYe-L4a2mj=AqguVjdkf65LZ772C-GbKgAj7CQro8rftXBg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20190928230049.k4l2mayun7jomhxy@development>
	<20191129060146.GH2505@paquier.xyz>
	<20191201004716.cenkc33em2lnrrdl@development>
	<20200121142529.wpickvfefp7lok4p@development>
	<CAAaqYe-=w0RaadtaTxfwuVa7GK+8QS7D51YzmfJLX9YZGfqc4A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAaqYe_kpBUEkKXLRYfspu05p0wgj_n3_tORStDfCvLUpWUbRA@mail.gmail.com>

James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com> writes:
> I'm looking at this now, and realized that at least for parallel plans the
> current patch tracks the tuplesort instrumentation whether or not an
> EXPLAIN ANALYZE is in process.

> Is this fairly standard for executor nodes? Or is it expected to condition
> some of this tracking based on whether or not an ANALYZE is running?

No, it's entirely not standard.  Maybe you could make an argument that
it's too cheap to bother making it conditional, but without a convincing
argument for that, it needs to be conditional.

			regards, tom lane





view thread (262+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <13718.1583448772@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Permalink:  ../13718.1583448772@sss.pgh.pa.us/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/13718.1583448772@sss.pgh.pa.us

 · 

reply
Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, jtc331@gmail.com, tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com, michael@paquier.xyz, rafia.pghackers@gmail.com, pg@bowt.ie, simon@2ndquadrant.com, shaun.thomas@2ndquadrant.com, 9erthalion6@gmail.com, a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com
  Subject: Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort)
  In-Reply-To: <13718.1583448772@sss.pgh.pa.us>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox