Re: track_functions default

2010/11/16 Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 16:09, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)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(at)postgresql(dot)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