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 CAFj8pRAOvQKvARJ36Qm2As=9HYYJz+wRL7iMzAOaazZcsiPnxg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] PoC plpgsql - possibility to force custom or generic plan  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers


2017-09-19 20:37 GMT+02:00 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>:
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.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.

I have nothing against GUC generally - just in this case, I have knowleadge what is expected behave in plpgsql environment and I miss this knowleadge else where, so I am thinking be good start just for plpgsql (where this issue is mentioned often). The some plpgsql limitted implementation is not barier against any another implementation.



--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Dipesh Dangol
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pgjdbc logical replication client throwing exception
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add citext_pattern_ops forcitext contrib module