Re: explain.c: why trace PlanState and Plan trees separately?
| От | Yeb Havinga |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: explain.c: why trace PlanState and Plan trees separately? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 4C3C8463.4070506@gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: explain.c: why trace PlanState and Plan trees separately? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: explain.c: why trace PlanState and Plan trees separately?
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga@gmail.com> writes: > >> Tom Lane wrote: >> >>> The reason I'm on about this at the moment is that I think I see how to >>> get ruleutils to print PARAM_EXEC Params as the referenced expression >>> rather than $N ... >>> >> Wouldn't this obfuscate the plan more than printing subplan arguments at >> the call site? >> > > It would if subplans could have more than one call site, but they can't. > > I do intend to force qualification of Vars that are printed as a result > of param expansion; > Will the new referenced expression printing also be used when printing subplans? If yes, I do not have to submit the latest version of a patch I made for subplan argument printing (discussed earlier in this thread http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-02/msg01602.php) regards, Yeb Havinga
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: