| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bryn Llewellyn <bryn(at)yugabyte(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general list <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane PostgreSQL <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Behavior of PL/pgSQL function following drop and re-create of a table that it uses |
| Date: | 2023-03-08 05:27:55 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwYOqKig-KDzn+0F4cJ9knK=_zMt1GNk0OK5hWLfKTS-dw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 10:19 PM Bryn Llewellyn <bryn(at)yugabyte(dot)com> wrote:
> Why not err on the side of caution and (I trust) guaranteed currency of
> each session's in-memory representation of a PL/pgSQL program with the
> environment in which it executes?
>
> After all, you add a column in order to use it. And this means that at the
> very least client-side code must be changed to do this. And this means
> quiescing use of the application and then re-starting it with new behavior.
> Is re-starting the connection pool before opening up the new app for use so
> expensive that it's worth trying to reason when it might be safe to avoid
> this re-start?
>
True. I was a bit hasty in forming an opinion on an operational aspect
like that. That just isn't something I typically think about.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Siddharth Jain | 2023-03-08 16:45:49 | Re: could not bind IPv4 address "127.0.0.1": Address already in use |
| Previous Message | Bryn Llewellyn | 2023-03-08 05:19:34 | Re: Behavior of PL/pgSQL function following drop and re-create of a table that it uses |