| From: | Sergey Shinderuk <s(dot)shinderuk(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Add PL/pgSQL extra check no_data_found |
| Date: | 2022-12-09 08:27:56 |
| Message-ID: | 47a99e2d-879d-0ecc-578e-e23527c5af51@postgrespro.ru |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 09.12.2022 09:46, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> I don't like the idea about possible replacement of INTO STRICT by INTO
> + extra warnings.
>
> Handling exceptions is significantly more expensive than in Oracle, and
> using INTO without STRICT with the next test IF NOT FOUND THEN can save
> one safepoint and one handling an exception. It should be mentioned in
> the documentation. Using this very common Oracle's pattern can have a
> very negative impact on performance in Postgres. If somebody does port
> from Oracle, and wants compatible behavior then he should use INTO
> STRICT. I think it is counterproductive to hide syntax differences when
> there is a significant difference in performance (and will be).
Fair enough. Thank you, Pavel.
--
Sergey Shinderuk https://postgrespro.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | John Naylor | 2022-12-09 08:53:01 | Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2022-12-09 08:26:59 | Re: generic plans and "initial" pruning |