2014-09-18 13:48 GMT+02:00 Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com>: > On 2014-09-18 13:44:47 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > 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>: > > > 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? > > Did you read what I wrote above? I'm sure you can rephrase them to be > more 'use case' like yourself. > > Isn't being able to do this on a standby a fundamental enough advantage? > Being significantly cheaper? Needing fewer roundtrips? >
no, I don't need more. My opinion is, so this proposal has no real benefit, but will do implement redundant functionality. Regards Pavel > > Greetings, > > Andres Freund > > -- > Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ > PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services >
