Re: Anonymous code block with parameters

2014-09-18 13:48 GMT+02:00 Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>:

> On 2014-09-18 13:44:47 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > 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>:
> > > 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?
>
> Did you read what I wrote above? I'm sure you can rephrase them to be
> more 'use case' like yourself.
>
> Isn't being able to do this on a standby a fundamental enough advantage?
> Being significantly cheaper? Needing fewer roundtrips?
>

no, I don't need more. My opinion is, so this proposal has no real benefit,
but will do implement redundant functionality.

Regards

Pavel

>
> Greetings,
>
> Andres Freund
>
> --
> Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
>