Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2016-11-26 08:41:28 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On November 26, 2016 8:06:26 AM PST, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Those don't call functions, they call operators. Yes, I know that an
>>> operator has a function underlying it, but the user-level expectation
>>> for track_functions is that what it counts are things that look
>>> syntactically like function calls. I'm not eager to add tracking
>>> overhead for cases that there's been exactly zero field demand for.
>> But we do track for OpExprs? Otherwise I'd agree.
> Bump?
If you're going to insist on foolish consistency, I'd rather take out
tracking in OpExpr than add it in dozens of other places.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
