| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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 19:46:48 |
| Message-ID: | 54207CA8.9030606@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-09-22 19:49:39 | Re: Anonymous code block with parameters |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-09-22 19:38:30 | Re: END_OF_RECOVERY shutdowns and ResetUnloggedRelations() |