| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 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: | 2017-09-05 17:38:42 |
| Message-ID: | 6556.1504633122@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> 2. what syntax we should to use (if we accept this feature)? There was not
> another proposal if I remember well - The PRAGMA syntax is strong because
> we can very well specify to range where the plans caching will be
> explicitly controlled. It is well readable and static.
The complaint I have about PRAGMA is that it's yet another syntax for
accomplishing pretty much the same thing. If you don't like the GUC
solution, we've already got the "comp_option" syntax for static options
in plpgsql. Sure, that's not too pretty, but that's not a good reason
to invent yet another way to do it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2017-09-05 17:41:11 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add psql variables showing server version and psql version. |
| Previous Message | Bossart, Nathan | 2017-09-05 17:36:46 | Re: [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands |