| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Reuven M(dot) Lerner" <reuven(at)lerner(dot)co(dot)il>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SQL functions vs. PL/PgSQL functions |
| Date: | 2010-10-14 14:40:42 |
| Message-ID: | 18112.1287067242@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> It's possible that at some point we'll try to introduce plan caching
>> for non-inlined SQL functions.
> hm, I think the search_path/function plan issue would have to be dealt
> with before doing this --
Yeah, perhaps. There doesn't seem to be any groundswell of demand for
doing anything about that anyway. Particularly since plpgsql is now
installed by default, a reasonable answer to "I'd like the system to
cache plans for this" is now "so write it in plpgsql instead".
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jesper Krogh | 2010-10-14 15:29:40 | Re: Slow count(*) again... |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2010-10-14 14:28:50 | Re: SQL functions vs. PL/PgSQL functions |