2018-03-02 3:43 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com>: > > > 2018-03-02 3:38 GMT+01:00 Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de>: > >> On 2018-03-02 03:13:04 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote: >> > 2018-03-01 23:10 GMT+01:00 Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de>: >> > >> > > On 2018-01-23 17:08:56 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote: >> > > > 2018-01-22 23:15 GMT+01:00 Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net>: >> > > > > This really could use a new thread, imv. This thread is a year >> old and >> > > > > about a completely different feature than what you've implemented >> here. >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > true, but now it is too late >> > > >> > > At the very least the CF entry could be renamed moved out the >> procedual >> > > language category? >> > > >> > >> > Why not? >> >> Because the patch adds GUCs that don't have a direct connection >> toprocedual languages? And the patch's topic still says "plpgsql plan >> cache behave" which surely is misleading. >> >> Seems fairly obvious that neither category nor name is particularly >> descriptive of the current state? >> >> > ok > > >> > Have you idea, what category is best? >> >> Server Features? Misc? And as a title something about "add GUCs to >> control custom plan logic"? >> >> > I'll move it there. >
done Pavel > > Regards > > Pavel > >> >> Greetings, >> >> Andres Freund >> > >
