On 04/05/2017 05:41 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-04-05 17:22:34 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
>>> I'd like some input from other committers whether we want this. I'm
>>> somewhat doubtful, but don't have particularly strong feelings.
>> I don't really want to expose the workings of the plancache at user level.
>> The heuristics it uses certainly need work, but it'll get hard to change
>> those once there are SQL features depending on it.
>>
>> Also, as you note, there are debatable design decisions in this particular
>> patch. There are already a couple of ways in which control knobs can be
>> attached to plgsql functions (i.e. custom GUCs and the comp_option stuff),
>> so why is this patch wanting to invent yet another fundamental mechanism?
>> And I'm not very happy about it imposing a new reserved keyword, either.
>>
>> A bigger-picture question is why we'd only provide such functionality
>> in plpgsql, and not for other uses of prepared plans.
>>
>> Lastly, it doesn't look to me like the test cases prove anything at all
>> about whether the feature does what it's claimed to.
> That echoes my perception - so let's move this to the next CF? It's not
> like this patch has been pending for very long.
>
Or just Return with Feedback.
ISTM before we revisit this we need agreement on a design.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
