| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: | 2017-04-08 00:30:59 |
| Message-ID: | 746a1f27-8a8c-b67f-ca4f-ec2e94426349@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 4/6/17 14:32, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> I like to see any proposals about syntax or implementation.
>
> Using PRAGMA is one variant - introduced by PLpgSQL origin - Ada
> language. The PRAGMA syntax can be used for PRAGMA autonomous with well
> known syntax. It scales well - it supports function, block or command
> level.
I had pragmas implemented in the original autonomous transactions patch
(https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/659a2fce-b6ee-06de-05c0-c8ed6a01979e@2ndquadrant.com)
However, the difference there is that the behavior is lexical, specific
to plpgsql, whereas here you are really just selecting run time
behavior. So a GUC, and also something that could apply to other
places, should be considered.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-04-08 00:36:51 | Re: partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-04-08 00:28:29 | Re: SCRAM authentication, take three |