2014-09-18 13:53 GMT+02:00 Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com>: > On 2014-09-18 13:51:56 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > 2014-09-18 13:48 GMT+02:00 Andres Freund <and...@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. Pavel > > Greetings, > > Andres Freund > > -- > Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ > PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services >
