Re: EXPLAIN: showing ReadStream / prefetch stats
Tomas Vondra <tomas@vondra.me>
From: Tomas Vondra <tomas@vondra.me>
To: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>
Cc: Lukas Fittl <lukas@fittl.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2026-04-07T21:28:32Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 4/7/26 21:42, Melanie Plageman wrote: > On Tue, Apr 7, 2026 at 1:34 PM Tomas Vondra <tomas@vondra.me> wrote: >> >> On 4/7/26 18:07, Melanie Plageman wrote: >> >>> I see I had bitmapheapscan use >>> if (!node->ss.ps.instrument || pcxt->nworkers == 0) >>> return; >>> >>> while seq scan uses >>> if (!estate->es_instrument || pcxt->nworkers == 0) >>> return; >>> >>> That does seem worth being consistent about. Though the estate one is >>> probably better to use and changing bitmapheapscan in this commit >>> might be noisy... I don't feel strongly either way. >> >> I'm not sure this is just a question of consistency, because BHS may >> need the shared instrumentation even if (es_instrument = 0), no? While >> the seqscan/tidrange scan only need it with EXPLAIN(IO). >> >> So I think the two nodes should check >> >> ((estate->es_instrument & INSTRUMENT_IO) == 0) > > Makes sense to me. > > I skimmed v14 quite quickly and LGTM. > Thanks. I've now pushed all parts of this patch series. -- Tomas Vondra
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
bufmgr: Return whether WaitReadBuffers() needed to wait
- 513374a47a71 19 (unreleased) landed