On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 16:09, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> 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 probably do. And most don't know about it, so they don't turn it on. Which means that in order to do anything, you have to first turn it on and then wait for a long time (whatever a reasonable cycle is) before you can start using it. Having it on by default would help in a lot of those cases. >> 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*? > > I think we determined it did; and as for those who aren't using pl > functions, there'd be no benefit to such a change anyway. Ok, if it does have a noticable performance impact, I can see why it's off by default. If it's only a tiny one, I would suggest it be on by default - simply so people have it there by default. If you're tuning your server for that last little bit of performance, you're touching a whole bunch of other settings anyway, so turning it off isn't a big deal.... I guess I should've done some actual measurements before posting :D -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
