Subject: Re: SQL Function Slowness, 8.3.0
From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: "Gavin M. Roy" <gmr@myyearbook.com>, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <8328.1208358587@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <af1bce590804160806t58f7da1g50fc697dd9e6ab08@mail.gmail.com>
	<8328.1208358587@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:12:31 +0100
Message-Id: <1208448751.4259.317.camel@ebony.site>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Wed, 2008-04-16 at 11:09 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Gavin M. Roy" <gmr@myyearbook.com> writes:
> > In 8.3.0, I'm seeing some oddities with SQL functions which I thought were
> > immune to the planner data restrictions of plpgsql functions and the sort.
> 
> Without a specific example this discussion is pretty content-free, but
> in general SQL functions face the same hazards of bad parameterized
> plans as plpgsql functions do.

I think it would help if there was some way to prepare functions to
allow them to be posted and understood more easily. These would help:

* a name obfuscator, so people can post functions without revealing
inner workings of their company and potentially lose intellectual
property rights over code posted in that way

* a pretty printer, so we can better understand them when we see 'em

Without these, I think we need to realise that many people will never
post their SQL at all.

-- 
  Simon Riggs
  2ndQuadrant  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com