| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Murray Prior Hobbs <murray(at)efone(dot)com>, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: temporary tables, plpgsql and yes i bet this has been asked |
| Date: | 2002-02-04 20:39:20 |
| Message-ID: | 12068.1012855160@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-sql |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Temp tables are the wrong way to think about it. *Any* invalidation
>> of schema data referred to in a query plan should cause replanning.
>> We have a TODO item covering this already, don't we?
> If we do, I don't see it. Care to give me one?
Hmm, I don't see one either. Odd, we've sure discussed it often enough.
How about
* Flush cached query plans when their underlying catalog data changes
Probably belongs under "DEPENDENCY CHECKING".
BTW, I was slightly startled to read this under URGENT:
* Allow row re-use without vacuum (Tom)
I don't consider this urgent or even likely ever to happen, and
I certainly have not taken responsibility to do it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-02-04 20:43:15 | Re: temporary tables, plpgsql and yes i bet this has been asked |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-02-04 20:27:06 | Re: temporary tables, plpgsql and yes i bet this has been asked |