From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(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 11:44:47 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRChWtJpw-+ZvL9Z1hyeqPDtvNjOPj3v436tn=Y8UKpspw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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>:
> >
> > > On 09/16/2014 10:09 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > > > On 09/16/2014 10:57 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> > > >> On 09/16/2014 03:15 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Why we don't introduce a temporary functions instead?
> > > >>
> > > >> I think that'd be a lot cleaner and simpler. It's something I've
> > > >> frequently wanted, and as Hekki points out it's already possible by
> > > >> creating the function in pg_temp, there just isn't the syntax sugar
> for
> > > >> "CREATE TEMPORARY FUNCTION".
> > > >>
> > > >> So why not just add "CREATE TEMPORARY FUNCTION"?
> > > >
> > > > Sure, why not.
> > >
> > > Because you still have to do
> > >
> > > SELECT pg_temp.my_temp_function(blah);
> > >
> > > to execute it.
> > >
> >
> > this problem should be solvable. I can to use a temporary tables without
> > using pg_temp schema.
>
> 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?
Pavel
>
> So yes, TEMPORARY FUNCTION would be helpful. But it's simply a different
> feature.
>
> Greetings,
>
> Andres Freund
>
> --
> Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2014-09-18 11:46:49 | Re: Collations and Replication; Next Steps |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-09-18 11:40:39 | Re: Anonymous code block with parameters |