"Kevin Grittner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Not quite as good. Since the archiver process can't actually deliver
> this number in a lightweight manner, all it goes to show is that the
> filter code compares reasonably well in performance with dd and cat.
I'd definitely vote for leaving it as a filter, given that there's
not a large performance penalty for that. It just seems a lot safer
and cleaner in that form.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
