| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Roberto Mello <rmello(at)cc(dot)usu(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Johnny Kristensen <johnnybo1(at)mail(dot)tele(dot)dk>, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SQL Functions vs PL/PgSQL |
| Date: | 2003-02-14 00:06:29 |
| Message-ID: | 2167.1045181189@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-sql |
Roberto Mello <rmello(at)cc(dot)usu(dot)edu> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 09:02:05AM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> Unless you know something I don't, I do not believe that PL/pgSQL stores
>> execution plans for functions.
> AFAIK execution plans for PL/pgSQL functions were cached once per backend.
> No?
Yes. This is explained in the docs ...
http://www.ca.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/7.3/postgres/plpgsql.html#PLPGSQL-OVERVIEW
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Boes | 2003-02-14 01:04:25 | Timezone conversion |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-02-13 23:48:29 | Re: Debugging postmaster to fix possible bug in Postgres? Followup |