On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu> writes:
>> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 9:14 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> In short then, I think we should just add this to EXPLAIN and be done.
>>> -1 for sticking the info into PlannedStmt or anything like that.
>
>> I'm confused. I thought I was arguing to support your suggestion that
>> the initial planning store the time in the cached plan and explain
>> should output the time the original planning took.
>
> Uh, no, wasn't my suggestion. Doesn't that design imply measuring *every*
> planning cycle, explain or no? I was thinking more of just putting the
> timing calls into explain.c.
Currently the patch includes changes to prepare.c which is what seems
odd to me. I think it'd be fine to say, hey, I can't give you the
planning time in this EXPLAIN ANALYZE because I just used a cached
plan and did not re-plan. But saying, hey, the planning time is
$TINYVALUE, when what we really mean is that looking up the
previously-cached plan took only that long, seems actively misleading
to me.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company