Re: PoC plpgsql - possibility to force custom or generic plan

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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