Re: C trigger significantly slower than PL/pgSQL?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Ernst-Georg Schmid <pgchem(at)tuschehund(dot)de>
Cc: "pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: C trigger significantly slower than PL/pgSQL?
Date: 2023-04-15 17:31:55
Message-ID: 2000624.1681579915@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-interfaces

Ernst-Georg Schmid <pgchem(at)tuschehund(dot)de> writes:
> I have still a follow-up question, though. Since I'm not calling
> SPI_freeplan(), the cached plan lives forever, right?

Till the per-session server process exits. I wouldn't call it
a leak as long as you can reuse the plan in later calls in that
session; a static variable's scope is fine for that.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-interfaces by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ivan Trofimov 2023-05-24 12:05:41 libpq seems to misbehave in a pipelining corner case
Previous Message Ernst-Georg Schmid 2023-04-14 17:39:20 Re: C trigger significantly slower than PL/pgSQL?