Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1j9zMZ-000891-Fw for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 05 Mar 2020 22:53:07 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1j9zMY-0007Ej-51 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 05 Mar 2020 22:53:06 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1j9zMX-0007EK-Op for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 05 Mar 2020 22:53:05 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1j9zMV-0003fC-GV for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 05 Mar 2020 22:53:04 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 025MqqSU013719; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 17:52:53 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: James Coleman cc: Tomas Vondra , Michael Paquier , Rafia Sabih , Peter Geoghegan , Simon Riggs , Shaun Thomas , Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>, Alexander Korotkov , PostgreSQL Developers , Alvaro Herrera Subject: Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort) In-reply-to: References: <20190721113422.hjubqs45xxpnldn7@development> <20190730001711.hprrcx3ntk57wuqv@development> <20190904191710.gogtnktjbvtg5zq3@development> <20190909215538.42hrv6j4z5ztcft4@development> <20190928230049.k4l2mayun7jomhxy@development> <20191129060146.GH2505@paquier.xyz> <20191201004716.cenkc33em2lnrrdl@development> <20200121142529.wpickvfefp7lok4p@development> Comments: In-reply-to James Coleman message dated "Thu, 05 Mar 2020 17:01:06 -0500" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <13717.1583448772.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2020 17:52:52 -0500 Message-ID: <13718.1583448772@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk James Coleman 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