| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kalyanov Dmitry <kalyanov(dot)dmitry(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Anonymous code block with parameters |
| Date: | 2014-09-22 19:49:39 |
| Message-ID: | 20140922194939.GB16337@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-09-22 15:46:48 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 9/18/14 7:40 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I fail to see why that is so much preferrable for you to passing
> > parameter to DO?
> >
> > 1) You need to think about unique names for functions
> > 2) Doesn't work on HOT STANDBYs
> > 3) Causes noticeable amount of catalog bloat
> > 4) Is about a magnitude or two more expensive
>
> Doesn't this apply to all temporary objects? It would also be great to
> have temporary tables, temporary indexes, temporary triggers, temporary
> extensions, etc. that don't have the above problems. I think inventing
> a separate mechanism for working around each instance of this problem
> would end up being very confusing.
Meh. Those aren't comparable. TEMPORARY TABLES/INDEXES/... all live
beyond a single statement. What's being discussed here doesn't.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-09-22 19:59:18 | Re: Options OUTPUT_PLUGIN_* controlling format are confusing (Was: Misleading error message in logical decoding) |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2014-09-22 19:46:48 | Re: Anonymous code block with parameters |