| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: PoC plpgsql - possibility to force custom or generic plan |
| Date: | 2017-09-11 12:44:44 |
| Message-ID: | 13051.1505133884@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 9/8/17 13:14, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> 2. Allow a SET to apply only for a single statement
>> SET guc1 = x, guc2 = y FOR stmt
>> e.g. SET max_parallel_workers = 4 FOR SELECT count(*) FROM bigtable
>> Internally a GUC setting already exists for a single use, via
>> GUC_ACTION_SAVE, so we just need to invoke it.
> This doesn't read well to me. It indicates to me "make this setting for
> this query [in case I run it later]", but it does not indicate that the
> query will be run.
Robert's original LET ... IN ... syntax proposal might be better from that
standpoint.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2017-09-11 12:45:56 | Re: Automatic testing of patches in commit fest |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-09-11 12:39:19 | Re: PoC plpgsql - possibility to force custom or generic plan |