Re: Rewrite, normal execution vs. EXPLAIN ANALYZE
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:
| От | Marko Tiikkaja |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Rewrite, normal execution vs. EXPLAIN ANALYZE |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 4C7C1D93.8040907@cs.helsinki.fi обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Re: Rewrite, normal execution vs. EXPLAIN ANALYZE (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Rewrite, normal execution vs. EXPLAIN ANALYZE
Re: Rewrite, normal execution vs. EXPLAIN ANALYZE |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, I looked at fixing this inconsistency by making all query list snapshot handling work like EXPLAIN ANALYZE's code does. The only reason I went this way was that implementing wCTEs on top of this behaviour is a lot easier. There were three places that needed fixing. The SPI and portal logic changes were quite straightforward, but the SQL language function code previously didn't know what query trees of the execution_state list belonged to which query so there was no way to tell when we actually needed to take a new snapshot. The approach I took was to change the representation of the SQL function cache to a list of execution_state lists, and grab a new snapshot between the lists. The patch needs a bit more comments and some cleaning up, but I thought I'd get your input first. Thoughts? Regards, Marko Tiikkaja
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:
Сайт использует файлы cookie для корректной работы и повышения удобства. Нажимая кнопку «Принять» или продолжая пользоваться сайтом, вы соглашаетесь на их использование в соответствии с Политикой в отношении обработки cookie ООО «ППГ», в том числе на передачу данных из файлов cookie сторонним статистическим и рекламным службам. Вы можете управлять настройками cookie через параметры вашего браузера