Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 3:03 AM, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hmm, was my case above not compelling enough?
> Apparently not to Tom, but it made sense to me.
No, it wasn't. I'm not convinced either that that patch will get in at
all, or that it has to have regression tests of that particular form,
or that such a switch would be sufficient to make such tests platform
independent.
> I think we should
> find a way to do something about this - maybe making TIMING OFF also
> suppress that info is the simplest approach.
We intentionally did *not* make TIMING OFF do that to begin with, and
I think changing that behavior now has even less chance of escaping
push-back than the "planning time" change did.
If we're convinced we must do something, I think exposing the SUMMARY
ON/OFF flag (possibly after bikeshedding the name) that I implemented
internally yesterday would be the thing to do. But as I said, I find
the use-case for this pretty darn weak.
regards, tom lane