2014-09-18 13:53 GMT+02:00 Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com>:
> On 2014-09-18 13:51:56 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > 2014-09-18 13:48 GMT+02:00 Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com>:
> > > On 2014-09-18 13:44:47 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > > Isn't being able to do this on a standby a fundamental enough
> > > Being significantly cheaper? Needing fewer roundtrips?
> > >
> > no, I don't need more. My opinion is, so this proposal has no real
> > but will do implement redundant functionality.
> FFS: What's redundant about being able to do this on a standby?
Is it solution for standby? It is necessary? You can have a functions on
Is not higher missfeature temporary tables on stanby?
again: I am not against to DO paramaterization. I am against to implement
DO with complexity like functions. If we have a problem with standby, then
we have to fix it correctly. There is a issue with temp tables, temp
sequences, temp functions.
> Andres Freund
> Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services