| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Solving the OID-collision problem |
| Date: | 2005-08-09 15:34:32 |
| Message-ID: | 16468.1123601672@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> writes:
> Can I ask what happens if we end up re-using a recently de-allocated
> OID? Specifically, can a cached plan (e.g. plpgsql function) end up
> referring to an object created after it was planned:
Definitely a potential risk, but not one to be solved by the sorts
of mechanisms we are discussing here. The answer to that one is
invalidation of cached plans using the SI message mechanism or some
extension thereof. I think Neil Conway was looking into this fairly
recently, but it didn't get done for 8.1.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2005-08-09 17:41:03 | Re: Solving the OID-collision problem |
| Previous Message | Matt Miller | 2005-08-09 15:01:29 | Re: PL/pgSQL: #option select_into_1_row (was SELECT INTO |