| From: | Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pgstat SRF? |
| Date: | 2008-04-22 18:12:03 |
| Message-ID: | EF0537CE-26E5-489A-9AC0-3A58E1DBE9B8@decibel.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Apr 21, 2008, at 8:34 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> While looking over the statistics-for-functions patch
> (http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2008-03/msg00300.php) I
> came back to a thought I've had before - why do we keep one function
> per column for pgstat functions, instead of using a set returning
> function? Is there some actual reason for this, or is it just legacy
> from a time when it was (much) harder to write SRFs?
>
> If there's no actual reason, I think it would be a good idea to
> make at
> least new views added based on SRFs instead....
+1. I could probably use this for pgstats at some point.
--
Decibel!, aka Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-04-22 18:17:00 | Re: MERGE Specification |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2008-04-22 18:00:51 | Re: [HACKERS] CommitFest Wiki page annoyance |