| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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>, 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: | 2017-09-19 16:45:09 |
| Message-ID: | CAFj8pRCfC5Wx1HCds3EnnBW_a_LrrvN_=phohjT6-pXewjMwQA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2017-09-19 18:33 GMT+02:00 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:46 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > There is possibility to introduce new compile option #option to disable
> plan
> > cache on function scope. Do you think so it is acceptable solution? It is
> > step forward.
>
> You can already set a GUC with function scope. I'm not getting your point.
>
yes, it is true. But implementation of #option is limited to PLpgSQL - so
there is not any too much questions - GUC is global - there is lot of
points:
* what is correct impact on PREPARE
* what is correct impact on EXECUTE
* what should be done if this GUC is changed ..
Regards
Pavel
> --
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-09-19 16:45:39 | Re: PG 10 release notes |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-09-19 16:33:52 | Re: PoC plpgsql - possibility to force custom or generic plan |