| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, 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: | 2017-09-19 18:37:36 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZsDeqtQRnD9OpFu2wN7hWOBq9grEDMES1XaLvytnYRkg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> You can already set a GUC with function scope. I'm not getting your
>> point.
>
> yes, it is true. But implementation of #option is limited to PLpgSQL - so
> there is not any too much questions - GUC is global - there is lot of
> points:
>
> * what is correct impact on PREPARE
> * what is correct impact on EXECUTE
> * what should be done if this GUC is changed ..
For better or for worse, as a project we've settled on GUCs as a way
to control behavior. I think it makes more sense to try to apply that
option to new behaviors we want to control than to invent some new
system.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dipesh Dangol | 2017-09-19 18:38:44 | Re: [HACKERS] pgjdbc logical replication client throwing exception |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-09-19 18:36:08 | Re: UPDATE of partition key |