From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>
Cc: Reuven M. Lerner <reuven@lerner.co.il>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: SQL functions vs. PL/PgSQL functions
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:40:42 -0400
Message-ID: <18112.1287067242@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=NrSw1ArR=Y6JSHkLfuwW7nxO9mRN-Mhxi3z89@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5549b04ab43625e39f74a859a2801ec3.squirrel@squirrelmail.lerner.co.il>
<25232.1286979266@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<AANLkTi=NrSw1ArR=Y6JSHkLfuwW7nxO9mRN-Mhxi3z89@mail.gmail.com>
Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> It's possible that at some point we'll try to introduce plan caching
>> for non-inlined SQL functions.
> hm, I think the search_path/function plan issue would have to be dealt
> with before doing this --
Yeah, perhaps. There doesn't seem to be any groundswell of demand for
doing anything about that anyway. Particularly since plpgsql is now
installed by default, a reasonable answer to "I'd like the system to
cache plans for this" is now "so write it in plpgsql instead".
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, mmoncure@gmail.com, reuven@lerner.co.il
Subject: Re: SQL functions vs. PL/PgSQL functions
In-Reply-To: <18112.1287067242@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox