Re: track_functions default

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: track_functions default
Date: 2010-11-16 15:09:18
Message-ID: 27976.1289920158@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> Is there a particular reason why track_functions is disabled by default?

Performance worries, plus the thought that not everyone cares to
have these stats.

> Does having it at 'pl' by default create a noticable overhead for
> people who aren't using pl functions? Or for that matter, even a
> noticable overhead for those that *are*?

I think we determined it did; and as for those who aren't using pl
functions, there'd be no benefit to such a change anyway.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2010-11-16 15:15:56 Re: Isn't HANDLE 64 bits on Win64?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-11-16 14:45:12 Re: Isn't HANDLE 64 bits on Win64?