Horton

Re: PoC plpgsql - possibility to force custom or generic plan

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Petr Jelinek <petr.jelinek@2ndquadrant.com>, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com>
Date: 2017-09-08T21:09:37Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes:
> personally I prefer syntax without FOR keyword - because following keyword
> must be reserved keyword

> SET x = .., y = .. SELECT ... ;

Nope.  Most of the statement-starting keywords are *not* fully reserved;
they don't need to be as long as they lead off the statement.  But this
proposal would break that.  We need to put FOR or IN or another
already-fully-reserved keyword after the SET list, or something's going
to bite us.

			regards, tom lane

Commits

  1. Add plan_cache_mode setting

  2. Add some noreturn attributes to help static analyzers

  3. document when PREPARE uses generic plans

  4. Redesign the plancache mechanism for more flexibility and efficiency.