Le mar. 26 mai 2020 à 16:25, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> a écrit :
Greetings,
* Guillaume Lelarge (guillaume@lelarge.info) wrote: > Le mar. 26 mai 2020 à 04:27, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> a écrit : > > To that end- what if this was done client-side with '\explain' or > > similar? Basically, it'd work like \watch or \g but we'd have options > > under pset like "explain_analyze t/f" and such. I feel like that'd also > > largely address the concerns about how this might 'feature creep' to > > other commands- because those other commands don't work with a query > > buffer, so it wouldn't really make sense for them. > > > > As for the concerns wrt explain UPDATE or explain DETELE actually > > running the query, that's what transactions are for, and if you don't > > feel comfortable using transactions or using these options- then don't. > > This means you'll always have to check if the new GUCs are set up in a way > it will actually execute the query or to open a transaction for the same > reason. This is a huge behaviour change where people might lose data.
It's only a behaviour change if you enable it.. and the suggestion I made specifically wouldn't even be a regular 'explain', you'd be using '\explain' in psql, a new command.
> I really don't like this proposal (the new GUCs).
The proposal you're commenting on (seemingly mine, anyway) didn't include adding any new GUCs.
My bad. I didn't read your email properly, sorry.
I wouldn't complain about a \explain metacommand. The proposal I (still) dislike is Vik's.