Re: why does plperl cache functions using just a bool for is_trigger

From: Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Jan Urbański <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org>, Postgres - Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: why does plperl cache functions using just a bool for is_trigger
Date: 2010-11-01 22:30:18
Message-ID: AANLkTi=h08oKqOF1kQE6UdiuDCFzW61CzbQ5p_Zmcfoj@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 15:24, Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
houldn't cache any of the setup but just redo it all every time.
>
> Huh?  I might try and argue that if the new test was more complex than
> 2 compares :P.  In-fact the way it stands now we uselessly grab the
> functions pg_proc entry in the common case.

This is bogus, I missed the fact that we need it to make sure the
function is uptodate for the OR REPLACE in CREATE OR REPLACE.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-11-01 22:47:30 Re: SR fails to send existing WAL file after off-line copy
Previous Message hernan gonzalez 2010-11-01 21:27:12 Re: Hash support for arrays