Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.208.211])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C5496350C6
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 13 Jan 2010 12:53:44 -0400 (AST)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.211]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 16793-09
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:53:33 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C14D463501F
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 13 Jan 2010 12:53:33 -0400 (AST)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id o0DGrVQO014396;
	Wed, 13 Jan 2010 11:53:31 -0500 (EST)
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
cc: Jaime Casanova <jcasanov@systemguards.com.ec>,
	decibel <decibel@decibel.org>,
	psql performance list <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [PERFORMANCE] work_mem vs temp files issue 
In-reply-to: <603c8f071001130824u3e0be910lfea14c3e475c8256@mail.gmail.com> 
References: <3073cc9b0908191745o3dc63d95q6b9308ef5bd199f2@mail.gmail.com>
	<603c8f071001111107v75276375g4d626dfc0efd8dc4@mail.gmail.com>
	<3073cc9b1001111114j7ddacd56p8966f9d61997a8b@mail.gmail.com>
	<3073cc9b1001111116x53427c9bm1e448128a3b4f6c6@mail.gmail.com>
	<18803.1263241120@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<3073cc9b1001122231m1a15d187lae2a8096a813361b@mail.gmail.com>
	<603c8f071001130723v634cb3c3u1604ea69efb04e91@mail.gmail.com>
	<10990.1263397358@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<603c8f071001130811g22387928g72262638532370e5@mail.gmail.com>
	<3073cc9b1001130814t79b313dk4377996dee0ac521@mail.gmail.com>
	<603c8f071001130824u3e0be910lfea14c3e475c8256@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
	message dated "Wed, 13 Jan 2010 11:24:09 -0500"
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 11:53:31 -0500
Message-ID: <14395.1263401611@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.458 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=AWL=0.141,
	BAYES_00=-2.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 201001/257
X-Sequence-Number: 37137

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> Yeah.  My question is whether it's acceptable to add an extra line to
> the EXPLAIN output for every hash join, even w/o ANALYZE.

We could add it if either VERBOSE or ANALYZE appears.  Not sure if
that's just too much concern for backwards compatibility, though.

			regards, tom lane