From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kalyanov Dmitry <kalyanov(dot)dmitry(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Anonymous code block with parameters |
Date: | 2014-09-18 11:48:13 |
Message-ID: | 20140918114813.GY25887@awork2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-09-18 13:44:47 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2014-09-18 13:40 GMT+02:00 Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>:
>
> > On 2014-09-17 22:17:22 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > > 2014-09-17 22:07 GMT+02:00 Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com>:
> > I fail to see why that is so much preferrable for you to passing
> > parameter to DO?
>
>
> > 1) You need to think about unique names for functions
> > 2) Doesn't work on HOT STANDBYs
> > 3) Causes noticeable amount of catalog bloat
> > 4) Is about a magnitude or two more expensive
> >
>
> 1. I am not against simple DO, what doesn't substitute functions
>
> 2. When DO have to substitute functions, then I don't see a benefits
>
> Show me real use case please?
Did you read what I wrote above? I'm sure you can rephrase them to be
more 'use case' like yourself.
Isn't being able to do this on a standby a fundamental enough advantage?
Being significantly cheaper? Needing fewer roundtrips?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2014-09-18 11:51:56 | Re: Anonymous code block with parameters |
Previous Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2014-09-18 11:48:12 | Re: Anonymous code block with parameters |