Re: [HACKERS] PoC plpgsql - possibility to force custom or generic plan

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Pavel Stehule
Тема Re: [HACKERS] PoC plpgsql - possibility to force custom or generic plan
Дата
Msg-id CAFj8pRAzj+m_u87YG3KYzCogiY1VOcP3k-1o3e+6t18ddArEQA@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] PoC plpgsql - possibility to force custom or generic plan  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers


2018-03-02 3:43 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>:


2018-03-02 3:38 GMT+01:00 Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>:
On 2018-03-02 03:13:04 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2018-03-01 23:10 GMT+01:00 Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>:
>
> > On 2018-01-23 17:08:56 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > > 2018-01-22 23:15 GMT+01:00 Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>:
> > > > This really could use a new thread, imv.  This thread is a year old and
> > > > about a completely different feature than what you've implemented here.
> > > >
> > >
> > > true, but now it is too late
> >
> > At the very least the CF entry could be renamed moved out the procedual
> > language category?
> >
>
> Why not?

Because the patch adds GUCs that don't have a direct connection
toprocedual languages?  And the patch's topic still says "plpgsql plan
cache behave" which surely is misleading.

Seems fairly obvious that neither category nor name is particularly
descriptive of the current state?


ok


> Have you idea, what category is best?

Server Features? Misc?  And as a title something about "add GUCs to
control custom plan logic"?


I'll move it there.

done

Pavel
 

Regards

Pavel

Greetings,

Andres Freund


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Pavel Stehule
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql - additional extra checks
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: heap_lock_updated_tuple_rec can leak a buffer refcount