| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeroen Vermeulen <jtv(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Bart Samwel <bart(at)samwel(dot)tk>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Avoiding bad prepared-statement plans. |
| Date: | 2010-02-26 18:11:44 |
| Message-ID: | 1005.1267207904@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I think this is basically a planner problem and should be fixed in the
>> planner, not by expecting users to make significant changes in
>> application logic in order to create an indirect effect.
> I would agree if I thought that were possible, but I'm skeptical about
> your proposed solution.
Fair enough --- maybe it will work well enough, or maybe it won't.
But the same can be said of every other proposal that's been made.
I'm in favor of trying the simpler approaches first.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-02-26 18:17:02 | Re: ProcSignalSlot vs. PGPROC |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-02-26 18:00:22 | Re: ecpg tests broken by pgindent run |