Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes: > 2. what syntax we should to use (if we accept this feature)? There was not > another proposal if I remember well - The PRAGMA syntax is strong because > we can very well specify to range where the plans caching will be > explicitly controlled. It is well readable and static.
The complaint I have about PRAGMA is that it's yet another syntax for accomplishing pretty much the same thing. If you don't like the GUC solution, we've already got the "comp_option" syntax for static options in plpgsql. Sure, that's not too pretty, but that's not a good reason to invent yet another way to do it.
comp_option has only function scope, what is too limited for this purpose.
I don't prefer GUC for this purpose because you need to do SET/RESET on two places. With GUC the code can looks like:
PERFORM set_config('cachexx', 'off')
FOR r IN SELECT ...
LOOP
PERFORM set_config(' cachexx', 'on')
....
PERFORM set_config('cachexx', 'off')
END LOOP;
PERFORM set_config('cachexx', 'on');
The another reason for inventing PRAGMA syntax to PLpgSQL was support for autonomous transaction and I am thinking so is good idea using same syntax like PL/SQL does.
