Re: Proposals for EXPLAIN: rename ANALYZE to EXECUTE and extend VERBOSE

> I've pushed the main patch.

Woohoo! And thank you. I've already seen quite a lot of positivity around
the commit on Twitter[1][2][3].

> I'm not planning on pushing the auto_explain.log_buffers default change
unless there's a bit more discussion about it.

Much like Guillaume, I'd also be in favour of 0002, but it's nowhere near
as important to me. I think most people consider the parameters far more
when setting up auto_explain, so I believe far fewer omit buffers by
mistake. Also, most cloud providers don't ship with auto_explain on, and
the only one I know of that does[4], ships with log_buffers on too. On the
plus side, it would be nice to be consistent. But on the downside, it might
add a little extra overhead for folks who run auto_explain with log_analyze
on, and who opted not to set log_buffers and upgrade without setting it to
off explicitly. I am still in favour of the 0002 patch being applied, to
avoid confusion and maximise the chance people that don't know about
buffers still get them in their plans.

> do we also need to update doc/src/sgml/rules.sgml?
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/rules-materializedviews.html

Good catch. Testing those file_fdw queries locally, I don't see buffers
reported by the Foreign Scan, but I do initially see some Planning buffers
(on first run). The two plans from the queries on the materialized view do
show buffers now though, of course. Since the file_fdw Foreign Scan is not
reporting buffers, I'm wondering if in this one case simply changing "With
EXPLAIN ANALYZE" to "With EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS OFF)" might be the
least confusing solution?

Thanks again all,
Michael

[1]: https://x.com/nori_shinoda/status/1866805465897898319
[2]: https://x.com/samokhvalov/status/1866863468172939457
[3]: https://x.com/mmeent_pg/status/1866796928002044196
[4]:
https://www.pgmustard.com/blog/which-cloud-providers-support-auto-explain