On 2017-04-05 17:22:34 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > I'd like some input from other committers whether we want this. I'm > > somewhat doubtful, but don't have particularly strong feelings. > > I don't really want to expose the workings of the plancache at user level. > The heuristics it uses certainly need work, but it'll get hard to change > those once there are SQL features depending on it. > > Also, as you note, there are debatable design decisions in this particular > patch. There are already a couple of ways in which control knobs can be > attached to plgsql functions (i.e. custom GUCs and the comp_option stuff), > so why is this patch wanting to invent yet another fundamental mechanism? > And I'm not very happy about it imposing a new reserved keyword, either. > > A bigger-picture question is why we'd only provide such functionality > in plpgsql, and not for other uses of prepared plans. > > Lastly, it doesn't look to me like the test cases prove anything at all > about whether the feature does what it's claimed to.
That echoes my perception - so let's move this to the next CF? It's not like this patch has been pending for very long. - Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
