| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PoC plpgsql - possibility to force custom or generic plan |
| Date: | 2017-01-24 05:43:41 |
| Message-ID: | CAFj8pRByqMePM8BOj7Q0+dsHCnPJ+KShmHTaLSP9CN6jaFhBkg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2017-01-23 21:59 GMT+01:00 Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>:
> On 1/23/17 2:10 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
>> Comments, notes?
>>
>
> +1 on the idea. It'd also be nice if we could expose control of plans for
> dynamic SQL, though I suspect that's not terribly useful without some kind
> of global session storage.
>
yes - it requires classic normalised query string controlled plan cache.
But same plan cache options can be valid for prepared statements - probably
with GUC. This is valid theme, but out of my proposal in this moment.
Regards
Pavel
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2017-01-24 06:06:58 | Re: \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless) |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2017-01-24 05:38:45 | Re: PoC plpgsql - possibility to force custom or generic plan |