On 2014-09-18 13:51:56 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote: > 2014-09-18 13:48 GMT+02:00 Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>: > > > On 2014-09-18 13:44:47 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > Isn't being able to do this on a standby a fundamental enough advantage? > > Being significantly cheaper? Needing fewer roundtrips? > > > > no, I don't need more. My opinion is, so this proposal has no real benefit, > but will do implement redundant functionality.
FFS: What's redundant about being able to do this on a standby?
Is it solution for standby? It is necessary? You can have a functions on master.
Is not higher missfeature temporary tables on stanby?
again: I am not against to DO paramaterization. I am against to implement DO with complexity like functions. If we have a problem with standby, then we have to fix it correctly. There is a issue with temp tables, temp sequences, temp functions.