From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Alessio Bragadini <alessio(at)albourne(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Re: Outstanding patches |
Date: | 2001-05-09 15:53:45 |
Message-ID: | 200105091553.f49FrjL05612@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-jdbc |
> > Ok, this is a more general point: in Oracle (which, as Ian points out,
> > uses this feature extensively) if you recreate table foo, function fooey
> > is tagged as 'dirty' and recompiled on the spot next time is used. This
> > is also true for VIEWs and other objects, so you don't have the problem
> > we have when a view breaks because you've updated the underlining table.
>
> Indeed, and we have plans to do something similar sometime soon. My
> real objection to this proposed feature is that there is no way to
> handle the update as a local matter within the function, because
> changing the function's input datatypes actually means it's a different
> function. This creates all sorts of problems at both the definitional
> and implementation levels...
Does this relate to allowing functions to be recreated with the same OID
as the original function? I think we need that badly for 7.2.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-05-09 16:01:29 | Re: Re: Outstanding patches |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-05-09 15:45:08 | Re: Case sensitive order by |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Larry Mulcahy | 2001-05-09 15:57:46 | Re: Is DataSource implemented? |
Previous Message | Mark Rosa | 2001-05-09 15:43:46 | Re: JDBC Download. |