On 09/18/2014 07:40 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-09-17 22:17:22 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> 2014-09-17 22:07 GMT+02:00 Vik Fearing <vik.fearing@dalibo.com>:
>>
>>> On 09/16/2014 10:09 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>>> On 09/16/2014 10:57 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>>>>> On 09/16/2014 03:15 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why we don't introduce a temporary functions instead?
>>>>> I think that'd be a lot cleaner and simpler. It's something I've
>>>>> frequently wanted, and as Hekki points out it's already possible by
>>>>> creating the function in pg_temp, there just isn't the syntax sugar for
>>>>> "CREATE TEMPORARY FUNCTION".
>>>>>
>>>>> So why not just add "CREATE TEMPORARY FUNCTION"?
>>>> Sure, why not.
>>> Because you still have to do
>>>
>>> SELECT pg_temp.my_temp_function(blah);
>>>
>>> to execute it.
>>>
>> this problem should be solvable. I can to use a temporary tables without
>> using pg_temp schema.
> I fail to see why that is so much preferrable for you to passing
> parameter to DO?
>
> 1) You need to think about unique names for functions
> 2) Doesn't work on HOT STANDBYs
> 3) Causes noticeable amount of catalog bloat
> 4) Is about a magnitude or two more expensive
>
> So yes, TEMPORARY FUNCTION would be helpful. But it's simply a different
> feature.
>
+1
If my memory isn't failing, when we implemented DO there were arguments
for this additional feature, but we decided that it wouldn't be done at
least on the first round. But we've had DO for a while and it's proved
its worth. So I think now is a perfect time to revisit the issue.
cheers
andrew