From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Stephen Frost" <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pl/pgsql Plan Invalidation and search_path |
Date: | 2008-01-28 04:27:15 |
Message-ID: | 17566.1201494435@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Jan 27, 2008 10:45 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> If we were to change this, we'd probably have to think in terms of
>> making the active search_path be part of the lookup key for cached plans.
> For the record, IMO it would on balance be better to have the plan
> invalidate when setting the search path.
I think that the actual use-case for this would likely involve
repetitive execution of a function F against various search_path
settings, and so what we'd want is to cache the appropriate plan for
each path setting, not just blow away the whole cache when search_path
changes. But the whole thing is something to investigate for 8.4.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | ITAGAKI Takahiro | 2008-01-28 05:05:53 | Vacuum threshold and non-serializable read-only transaction |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-01-28 04:22:23 | Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable |