Re: making EXPLAIN extensible
Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov@gmail.com>
From: Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov@gmail.com>
To: Sami Imseih <samimseih@gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com>,
PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2025-03-20T07:03:58Z
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 →
-
pg_overexplain: Use PG_MODULE_MAGIC_EXT.
- 83ccc85859f3 18.0 landed
-
pg_overexplain: Call previous hooks as appropriate.
- 9f0c36aea0fb 18.0 landed
-
pg_overexplain: Additional EXPLAIN options for debugging.
- 8d5ceb113e3f 18.0 landed
-
Add an additional hook for EXPLAIN option validation.
- 50ba65e73325 18.0 landed
-
Add some new hooks so extensions can add details to EXPLAIN.
- 4fd02bf7cf94 18.0 landed
-
Make it possible for loadable modules to add EXPLAIN options.
- c65bc2e1d14a 18.0 landed
On 19/3/2025 21:51, Sami Imseih wrote: >> Why do you think this hook is not redundant? > what is it redundant with? > >> It would be better to add the parameter "type: EXPLAIN_ONLY | >> ANALYZE_ONLY | BOTH" to the RegisterExtensionExplainOption() routine. >> This value will be saved inside the ExplainExtensionOption structure and >> processed by the core inside the ParseExplainOptionList. > > hmm, IIUC, what you are describing is flag that will be limited to > only check if an option can be used with EXPLAIN_ONLY, ANALYZE_ONLY > or both. But what about if I have a case to check against between other > extension options? let's say ExtensionAOptionA and ExtensionAoptionB. > How would that work with the way you are suggesting? That makes sense. It would be more effective to include the meaningful example in Robert's extension for v7-0001. I'm sorry, I was confused; previously, the difficulties faced by extension developers were always attributed to him (refer to the discussion on the selectivity hook). However, now you're introducing a hook for a trivial operation that could simply be resolved at the end of execution within a per-node hook with tiny inconsistency in output. I'm pleased to see a change in the narrative. -- regards, Andrei Lepikhov