Re: [PATCH] Improve EXPLAIN ANALYZE overhead by sampling

On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 12:22:54PM +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> > > - I also didn't make it optional. I'm unsure about whether it should be
> > > optional or not, given the number of cases where it will make a
> > > difference to be very few.
> >
> > The real question is how important it is to have the real data in the
> > cases where it would make a difference, and I suspect we can't answer
> > that until this is out in the field. It *might* be worth a #define or
> > some other way to disable it that doesn't require patching code, but
> > probably not.
>
> A #define is doable, though messy. The code isn't all that long anyway
> so a few #ifdefs might make it confusing. But I'll see what I can do.

If it proves messy, it's probably not worth doing. Presumably anyone
able to tweak a #define could probably apply a patch as well. If you are
going to go through the effort it probably makes the most sense to just
add the remaining syntax to make it dynamic.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant      jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software      http://pervasive.com    work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf       cell: 512-569-9461