Re: pgstat SRF?

From: Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pgstat SRF?
Date: 2008-04-22 18:12:03
Message-ID: EF0537CE-26E5-489A-9AC0-3A58E1DBE9B8@decibel.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Apr 21, 2008, at 8:34 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:

> While looking over the statistics-for-functions patch
> (http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2008-03/msg00300.php), I
> came back to a thought I've had before - why do we keep one function
> per column for pgstat functions, instead of using a set returning
> function? Is there some actual reason for this, or is it just legacy
> from a time when it was (much) harder to write SRFs?
>
> If there's no actual reason, I think it would be a good idea to
> make at
> least new views added based on SRFs instead....

+1. I could probably use this for pgstats at some point.
--
Decibel!, aka Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828

In response to

  • pgstat SRF? at 2008-04-21 13:34:23 from Magnus Hagander

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gregory Stark 2008-04-22 18:17:00 Re: MERGE Specification
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2008-04-22 18:00:51 Re: [HACKERS] CommitFest Wiki page annoyance