Re: auto_explain contrib moudle
От | Martin Pihlak |
---|---|
Тема | Re: auto_explain contrib moudle |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 49156791.4000005@gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: auto_explain contrib moudle (Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: auto_explain contrib moudle
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Davis wrote: > I still don't understand why this psql patch is desirable. Who sets > their client_min_messages to LOG in psql? And if they do, why would they > expect different behavior that they always got from the already-existing > GUC log_min_duration_statement? > I know a few ;) In my environment the auto-explain is especially useful when used from within psql. Server logs are not always easy to get to, and it is difficult to extract the interesting bits (large files and lots of log traffic). For me the primary use of auto-explain would be interactive troubleshooting. The troublesome statements usually involve several nested function calls and are tedious to trace manually. With auto-explain I fire up psql, load the module, set the client log level, run the statements and immediately see what's going on. I bet that lot of the developers and QA folk would use it similarly. You are of course right about the log_min_duration_statement, also the log_executor_stats etc. behave similarly. So indeed, the "ignore notices" patch is not necessarily part of auto-explain. Regards, Martin
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: