Re: [HACKERS] PoC plpgsql - possibility to force custom or generic plan
От | Daniel Gustafsson |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] PoC plpgsql - possibility to force custom or generic plan |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 242AAFC2-EA2F-4147-8340-2A50A29638F0@yesql.se обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] PoC plpgsql - possibility to force custom or generic plan (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] PoC plpgsql - possibility to force custom or generic plan
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> On 08 Apr 2017, at 09:42, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote: > > 2017-04-08 2:30 GMT+02:00 Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com <mailto:peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>>: > On 4/6/17 14:32, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > I like to see any proposals about syntax or implementation. > > > > Using PRAGMA is one variant - introduced by PLpgSQL origin - Ada > > language. The PRAGMA syntax can be used for PRAGMA autonomous with well > > known syntax. It scales well - it supports function, block or command > > level. > > I had pragmas implemented in the original autonomous transactions patch > (https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/659a2fce-b6ee-06de-05c0-c8ed6a01979e@2ndquadrant.com <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/659a2fce-b6ee-06de-05c0-c8ed6a01979e@2ndquadrant.com>). > However, the difference there is that the behavior is lexical, specific > to plpgsql, whereas here you are really just selecting run time > behavior. So a GUC, and also something that could apply to other > places, should be considered. > > I'll look there - we coordinate work on that. This patch was moved to the now started commitfest, and is marked as “Needs review”. Based on this thread I will however change it to "waiting for author”, since there seems to be some open questions. Has there been any new work done on this towards a new design/patch? cheers ./daniel
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: