Horton

Re: RFC: Logging plan of the running query

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>

View thread
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: torikoshia <torikoshia@oss.nttdata.com>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>, Étienne BERSAC <etienne.bersac@dalibo.com>, ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com, rafaelthca@gmail.com, jian.universality@gmail.com
Date: 2024-03-26T02:34:47Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. ecpg: Catch zero-length Unicode identifiers correctly

  2. Improve warning message in pg_signal_backend()

  3. Add assert to ensure that page locks don't participate in deadlock cycle.

Hi,

On 2024-03-13 15:33:02 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> But also ... having to wrap the entire plan tree like this seems
> pretty awful. I don't really like the idea of a large-scan plan
> modification like this in the middle of the query.

It's not great. But I also don't really see an alternative with this approach.

I guess we could invent a new CFI version that gets the current PlanState and
use that in all of src/backend/executor/node* and pass the PlanState to that -
but then we could just as well just directly process the interrupt there.


> I also wonder whether it interacts properly with JIT.

I don't think there's a problem unless somebody invests a lot of time in
JITing much more of the query. Which will require a lot more work, basically
redesigning the executor...



> Andres, did you have some clever idea for this feature that would
> avoid the need to do this?

No. I think it's acceptable though.

However it might be worth inventing an executor tree walker in a preliminary
step. We have already quite a few switches over all plan nodes, which we could
largely replace with a helper.

Greetings,

Andres Freund