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 (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers