|From:||Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>|
|To:||Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>|
|Cc:||Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|Subject:||Re: [HACKERS] Cached plans and statement generalization|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
> On 1 Mar 2020, at 20:26, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> In short, I really think we ought to reject this patch and move on.
> Maybe it could be resurrected sometime in the future when we have a
> better handle on when to cache plans and when not.
> If you want to press forward with it anyway, certainly the lack of
> any tests in this patch is another big objection. Perhaps you
> could create a pgbench TAP script that exercises the logic.
Based on Tom's review, and that nothing has been submitted since, I've marked
this entry as returned with feedback. Feel to open a new entry if you want to
address Tom's comments and take this further.
|Next Message||michael||2020-07-01 09:24:18||Re: Ought to use heap_multi_insert() for pg_attribute/depend insertions?|
|Previous Message||vignesh C||2020-07-01 09:16:19||Re: Parallel copy|