2014-09-18 13:40 GMT+02:00 Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com>: > On 2014-09-17 22:17:22 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > 2014-09-17 22:07 GMT+02:00 Vik Fearing <vik.fear...@dalibo.com>: > > > > > On 09/16/2014 10:09 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > > > > On 09/16/2014 10:57 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: > > > >> On 09/16/2014 03:15 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Why we don't introduce a temporary functions instead? > > > >> > > > >> I think that'd be a lot cleaner and simpler. It's something I've > > > >> frequently wanted, and as Hekki points out it's already possible by > > > >> creating the function in pg_temp, there just isn't the syntax sugar > for > > > >> "CREATE TEMPORARY FUNCTION". > > > >> > > > >> So why not just add "CREATE TEMPORARY FUNCTION"? > > > > > > > > Sure, why not. > > > > > > Because you still have to do > > > > > > SELECT pg_temp.my_temp_function(blah); > > > > > > to execute it. > > > > > > > this problem should be solvable. I can to use a temporary tables without > > using pg_temp schema. > > I fail to see why that is so much preferrable for you to passing > parameter to DO?
> 1) You need to think about unique names for functions > 2) Doesn't work on HOT STANDBYs > 3) Causes noticeable amount of catalog bloat > 4) Is about a magnitude or two more expensive > 1. I am not against simple DO, what doesn't substitute functions 2. When DO have to substitute functions, then I don't see a benefits Show me real use case please? Pavel > > So yes, TEMPORARY FUNCTION would be helpful. But it's simply a different > feature. > > Greetings, > > Andres Freund > > -- > Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ > PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services >
