Re: [HACKERS] PoC plpgsql - possibility to force custom or generic plan - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Pavel Stehule
Subject Re: [HACKERS] PoC plpgsql - possibility to force custom or generic plan
Date
Msg-id CAFj8pRA9adNmiqkeSQLktebq2qBojsVCaKdnhpTf0CvA1Wt+cw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] PoC plpgsql - possibility to force custom or generic plan  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] PoC plpgsql - possibility to force custom or generic plan
List pgsql-hackers


2017-09-11 14:44 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 9/8/17 13:14, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> 2. Allow a SET to apply only for a single statement
>> SET guc1 = x, guc2 = y FOR stmt
>> e.g. SET max_parallel_workers = 4 FOR SELECT count(*) FROM bigtable
>> Internally a GUC setting already exists for a single use, via
>> GUC_ACTION_SAVE, so we just need to invoke it.

> This doesn't read well to me.  It indicates to me "make this setting for
> this query [in case I run it later]", but it does not indicate that the
> query will be run.

Robert's original LET ... IN ... syntax proposal might be better from that
standpoint.

From my perspective Robert's proposal is not targeted to PLpgSQL well, because it doesn't allow to choose granularity.

I am not sure what is result from this discussion:

1. this feature is wanted

2. a opened question is the syntax

I am sure so GUC are not a good design solution for PL/pgSQL. Robert's proposal does thing  bit better, but it has sense more for another environments than PLpgSQL - more, it allows more degree of freedom what has sense for PLpgSQL.

There is possibility to introduce new compile option #option to disable plan cache on function scope. Do you think so it is acceptable solution? It is step forward.

Regards

Pavel



                        regards, tom lane

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Fabien COELHO
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pgbench: Skipping the creating primary keys afterinitialization
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Bug with pg_basebackup and 'shared' tablespace