Re: temporary tables, plpgsql and yes i bet this has been asked

Tom Lane wrote:
> 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

Yes, under DEPENDENCIE CHECKING. Done.

> 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.

Well, a name doesn't mean someone claimed it but rather the _expert_ on
the item. I added this item assuming it was going to be accomplished
with some type of auto-vacuum. I will clearify it to mention
auto-vacuum, if that is OK.

--
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