From: Josh Berkus on 5 Aug 2010 13:58 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 functions of language SQL. Is > there a reason for this inconsistency? Undoubtedly because function data collection already filters on function language, per the GUC setting. Not that that is a *good* reason, but I can see how we arrived a the current functionality. -- -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://www.pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: David Fetter on 5 Aug 2010 10:13 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. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <david(a)fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter(a)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(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
|
Pages: 1 Prev: Online backup cause bootfailure,anyone know why? Next: remove upsert example from docs |