Re: 'prepare' is not quite schema-safe

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
Cc: Vlad <marchenko(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, dbdpg-general(at)gborg(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 'prepare' is not quite schema-safe
Date: 2005-05-02 04:49:47
Message-ID: 10682.1115009387@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> An alternative would be to flush dependent plans when the schema search
> path is changed.

I think this would actually be the Wrong Thing. It's certainly a
debatable point --- but the best analogy we have is the behavior of
plpgsql functions in the face of search-path changes, and I think that
most people who have thought about that carefully are in favor of
changing plpgsql functions to follow a search path frozen at function
creation time. The fact that we haven't gotten around to making that
happen isn't an argument for breaking PREPARE in the same way that
plpgsql is broken ;-)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Vlad 2005-05-02 04:51:19 Re: 'prepare' is not quite schema-safe
Previous Message Neil Conway 2005-05-02 04:30:56 Re: 'prepare' is not quite schema-safe