Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> writes:
> 2. what syntax we should to use (if we accept this feature)? There was not
> another proposal if I remember well - The PRAGMA syntax is strong because
> we can very well specify to range where the plans caching will be
> explicitly controlled. It is well readable and static.
The complaint I have about PRAGMA is that it's yet another syntax for
accomplishing pretty much the same thing. If you don't like the GUC
solution, we've already got the "comp_option" syntax for static options
in plpgsql. Sure, that's not too pretty, but that's not a good reason
to invent yet another way to do it.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
