On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 03:25:06PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On tor, 2010-08-05 at 07:13 -0700, David Fetter wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 04:58:32PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > > pg_stat_user_functions has an inconsistent notion of what "user" > > > is. Whereas the other pg_stat_user_* views filter out non-user > > > objects by schema, pg_stat_user_functions checks for language > > > "internal", which does not successfully exclude builtin > > > functions of language SQL. Is there a reason for this > > > inconsistency? > > > > If I had to hazard a guess, it would be that the functionality was > > written over time by different people, not all of whom were using > > the same criteria for coherence. > > Would anyone object to changing it to make it more consistent with > other others? And since we're jollily making catalog changes in 9.0 > still, could this also be backpatched?
+1 for both. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
