Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_user_functions' notion of user

2010-08-08 Thread Josh Berkus
On 8/8/10 8:40 AM, David Fetter wrote: >> 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? I'd object. It's not a bug (arguable spec, maybe, but working as spec'd),

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_user_functions' notion of user

2010-08-08 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut writes: > On sön, 2010-08-08 at 11:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> The reason for the inconsistency is that the underlying behavior is >> different: fmgr automatically doesn't collect stats for internal >> functions. > Sure it does: When they are defined in language SQL. Those are

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_user_functions' notion of user

2010-08-08 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On sön, 2010-08-08 at 11:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > The reason for the inconsistency is that the underlying behavior is > different: fmgr automatically doesn't collect stats for internal > functions. Sure it does: When they are defined in language SQL. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (p

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_user_functions' notion of user

2010-08-08 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut writes: > 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 >>>

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_user_functions' notion of user

2010-08-08 Thread David Fetter
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_sta

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_user_functions' notion of user

2010-08-08 Thread Peter Eisentraut
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_func

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_user_functions' notion of user

2010-08-05 Thread Josh Berkus
On 8/5/10 6:58 AM, 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 fu

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_user_functions' notion of user

2010-08-05 Thread David Fetter
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 successf

[HACKERS] pg_stat_user_functions' notion of user

2010-08-05 Thread Peter Eisentraut
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 thi