Andrew McMillan wrote:
> > > That sounds excellent - I hadn't realised that this workaround would be
> > > possible, and indeed with this in place that will provide even better
> > > control over the facility.
> >
> > OK, here is one vote for the ALTER USER/remove USERLIMIT croud, and you
> > were the person who originally mentioned the problem. You don't think
> > the function creation is hard. Perhaps that's the way to go then.
>
> Yes, I agree - it seems good.
>
> Also, I don't see that this function would need to be "written under
> stress" as ISTR you suggested elsewhere - any analysis like this is
> going to be following on from review of other statistics - I think it
> would normally be a well-planned process.
OK, Tom please go ahead with the patch.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
