2010/11/16 Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net>: > 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 agree, this parameter is not used a lot, but is very usefull. > > 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 > -- Cédric Villemain 2ndQuadrant http://2ndQuadrant.fr/ PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
