2010/11/16 Magnus Hagander :
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 16:09, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Magnus Hagander 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.
>
> Most people who are
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 16:09, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander 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.
Most people who are actively using stored procedures proba
Magnus Hagander 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
Is there a particular reason why track_functions is disabled by default?
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*?
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
