Re: SQL functions vs. PL/PgSQL functions

From: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Reuven M(dot) Lerner" <reuven(at)lerner(dot)co(dot)il>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SQL functions vs. PL/PgSQL functions
Date: 2010-10-14 14:28:50
Message-ID: AANLkTi=NrSw1ArR=Y6JSHkLfuwW7nxO9mRN-Mhxi3z89@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> It's possible that at some point we'll try to introduce plan caching
> for non-inlined SQL functions.

hm, I think the search_path/function plan issue would have to be dealt
with before doing this -- a while back IIRC you suggested function
plans might be organized around search_path setting at plan time, or
this would break a fair amount of code (for example, mine) :-).

merlin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-10-14 14:40:42 Re: SQL functions vs. PL/PgSQL functions
Previous Message mark 2010-10-14 04:22:16 Re: Slow count(*) again...