Re: [HACKERS] PoC plpgsql - possibility to force custom or generic plan

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 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: [HACKERS] PoC plpgsql - possibility to force custom or generic plan
Date: 2018-03-02 21:34:42
Message-ID: CAFj8pRAzj+m_u87YG3KYzCogiY1VOcP3k-1o3e+6t18ddArEQA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

2018-03-02 3:43 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>:

>
>
> 2018-03-02 3:38 GMT+01:00 Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>:
>
>> On 2018-03-02 03:13:04 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> > 2018-03-01 23:10 GMT+01:00 Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>:
>> >
>> > > On 2018-01-23 17:08:56 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> > > > 2018-01-22 23:15 GMT+01:00 Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>:
>> > > > > This really could use a new thread, imv. This thread is a year
>> old and
>> > > > > about a completely different feature than what you've implemented
>> here.
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > true, but now it is too late
>> > >
>> > > At the very least the CF entry could be renamed moved out the
>> procedual
>> > > language category?
>> > >
>> >
>> > Why not?
>>
>> Because the patch adds GUCs that don't have a direct connection
>> toprocedual languages? And the patch's topic still says "plpgsql plan
>> cache behave" which surely is misleading.
>>
>> Seems fairly obvious that neither category nor name is particularly
>> descriptive of the current state?
>>
>>
> ok
>
>
>> > Have you idea, what category is best?
>>
>> Server Features? Misc? And as a title something about "add GUCs to
>> control custom plan logic"?
>>
>>
> I'll move it there.
>

done

Pavel

>
> Regards
>
> Pavel
>
>>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> Andres Freund
>>
>
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2018-03-02 21:56:32 Re: heap_lock_updated_tuple_rec can leak a buffer refcount
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2018-03-02 21:30:43 Re: Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql - additional extra checks