| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Skipping PgStat_FunctionCallUsage for many expressions |
| Date: | 2017-02-14 22:58:23 |
| Message-ID: | 696.1487113103@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2016-11-26 08:41:28 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On November 26, 2016 8:06:26 AM PST, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Those don't call functions, they call operators. Yes, I know that an
>>> operator has a function underlying it, but the user-level expectation
>>> for track_functions is that what it counts are things that look
>>> syntactically like function calls. I'm not eager to add tracking
>>> overhead for cases that there's been exactly zero field demand for.
>> But we do track for OpExprs? Otherwise I'd agree.
> Bump?
If you're going to insist on foolish consistency, I'd rather take out
tracking in OpExpr than add it in dozens of other places.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Corey Huinker | 2017-02-14 23:01:05 | Re: \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless) |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2017-02-14 22:44:30 | Re: Skipping PgStat_FunctionCallUsage for many expressions |