From: | Vlad Krupin <vlad(at)echospace(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: 'DROP INDEX' kills stored rpocedures |
Date: | 2003-04-03 19:11:50 |
Message-ID: | 3E8C8776.6050801@echospace.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Tom Lane wrote:
>"scott.marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> writes:
>
>
>>Don't make assumptions like that. In postgresql, DDL is transactionable.
>>
>>
>
>I think his actual problem is that plpgsql cached a query plan for some
>command while the index was in place, and then on a later re-execution
>of the function, it tried to re-use the cached plan. This is a general
>problem that we know we need to fix sooner or later --- cached plans
>need to be invalidated when there are DDL changes to the underlying
>tables, views, etc.
>
that totally makes sense (in fact, I sent another message to the list 15
minutes ago guessing that this could be the case. You can ignore it now).
So, if I first re-create indexes and then do a 'VACUUM ANALYZE' on the
table where those indexes were dropped, it should discard the old cached
plans and create a new one, right?
Vlad
--
Vlad Krupin
Software Engineer
echospace.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Clarence Gardner | 2003-04-03 19:16:32 | triggers using row values |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-04-03 19:11:13 | Re: RelationBuildDesc Notice (corrupt DB?) |