Re: [HACKERS] PoC plpgsql - possibility to force custom or generic plan
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [HACKERS] PoC plpgsql - possibility to force custom or generic plan |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 13051.1505133884@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] PoC plpgsql - possibility to force custom or genericplan (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] PoC plpgsql - possibility to force custom or generic plan
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 9/8/17 13:14, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> 2. Allow a SET to apply only for a single statement
>> SET guc1 = x, guc2 = y FOR stmt
>> e.g. SET max_parallel_workers = 4 FOR SELECT count(*) FROM bigtable
>> Internally a GUC setting already exists for a single use, via
>> GUC_ACTION_SAVE, so we just need to invoke it.
> This doesn't read well to me. It indicates to me "make this setting for
> this query [in case I run it later]", but it does not indicate that the
> query will be run.
Robert's original LET ... IN ... syntax proposal might be better from that
standpoint.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: