Re: list of extended statistics on psql
От | Tomas Vondra |
---|---|
Тема | Re: list of extended statistics on psql |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 29e16ceb-8777-4297-19c8-245242dd7473@enterprisedb.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: list of extended statistics on psql (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: list of extended statistics on psql
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/8/21 1:14 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > > > On 1/8/21 12:52 AM, Tatsuro Yamada wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 2021/01/08 0:56, Tomas Vondra wrote: >>> On 1/7/21 3:47 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >>>> On 2021-Jan-07, Tomas Vondra wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 1/7/21 1:46 AM, Tatsuro Yamada wrote: >>>> >>>>>> I overlooked the check for MCV in the logic building query >>>>>> because I created the patch as a new feature on PG14. >>>>>> I'm not sure whether we should do back patch or not. However, I'll >>>>>> add the check on the next patch because it is useful if you decide to >>>>>> do the back patch on PG10, 11, 12, and 13. >>>>> >>>>> BTW perhaps a quick look at the other \d commands would show if >>>>> there are >>>>> precedents. I didn't have time for that. >>>> >>>> Yes, we do promise that new psql works with older servers. >>>> >>> >>> Yeah, makes sense. That means we need add the check for 12 / MCV. >> >> >> Ah, I got it. >> I fixed the patch to work with older servers to add the checking >> versions. And I tested \dX command on older servers (PG10 - 13). >> These results look fine. >> >> 0001: >> Added the check code to handle pre-PG12. It has not MCV and >> pg_statistic_ext_data. >> 0002: >> This patch is the same as the previous patch (not changed). >> >> Please find the attached files. >> > > OK, thanks. I'll take a look and probably push tomorrow. FWIW I plan to > squash the patches into a single commit. > Attached is a patch I plan to commit - 0001 is the last submitted version with a couple minor tweaks, mostly in docs/comments, and small rework of branching to be more like the other functions in describe.c. While working on that, I realized that 'defined' might be a bit ambiguous, I initially thought it means 'NOT NULL' (which it does not). I propose to change it to 'requested' instead. Tatsuro, do you agree, or do you think 'defined' is better? regards -- Tomas Vondra EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: