From: | "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Plan invalidation vs temp sequences |
Date: | 2007-10-11 07:44:28 |
Message-ID: | 470DD45C.3060706@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> ... We might want to do that someday --- in particular,
> if we ever try to extend the plan inval mechanism to react to
> redefinitions of non-table objects, we'd likely need some such thing
> anyway. I'm disinclined to try to do it for 8.3 though. The use-case
> for temp sequences seems a bit narrow and there are several workarounds
> (see followups to bug report), so I'm feeling this is a
> fix-some-other-day kind of issue.
Agreed. I was a bit worried about this kind of usage:
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION testfunc(val int) RETURNS int AS $$
DECLARE
BEGIN
CREATE TEMPORARY SEQUENCE tempseq;
CREATE TEMPORARY TABLE inttable (key integer DEFAULT
nextval('tempseq'), data text);
INSERT INTO inttable (data) VALUES ('foo');
DROP TABLE inttable;
DROP SEQUENCE tempseq;
return 1;
END;
$$ LANGUAGE plpgsql;
but that seems to work, because creating/dropping the temp table
triggers the plan invalidation.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Brendan Jurd | 2007-10-11 08:10:03 | Re: quote_literal with NULL |
Previous Message | Marko Kreen | 2007-10-11 07:13:25 | Re: Skytools committed without hackers discussion/review |