From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Bug in prepared statement cache invalidation? |
Date: | 2017-05-02 21:31:38 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZt2VthEjJu=us045zowKs2HL_J=EyowBmU4pPwWTjSpg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 3:10 PM, Konstantin Knizhnik
<k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> On 05/02/2017 09:30 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> I am not sure how critical is this problem. Definitely it rarely happens,
>>> but lack of normal workarounds (restart backend, recreate function?)
>>> seems
>>> to be disappointing.
>>
>> The problem goes away if you reconnect. The problematic cache is only
>> backend-lifetime.
>>
> Most of clients are not connected to the Postgres directly, them are using
> some kind of connection pooling.
> It means that backends are never restarted. And it will be necessary to
> restart the whole service just because we do not have
> dependency tracking mechanism for PL code. Even invalidation of all
> functions in case of DDL seems to be more acceptable solution.
Yeah. I think there should be a way to tell a PL to flush any
internal caches it is maintaining, some variant of DISCARD. But that
would require a bunch of code that nobody's written yet.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-05-02 21:50:42 | Re: Bug in prepared statement cache invalidation? |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-05-02 21:30:05 | Re: multi-column range partition constraint |