Re: Behavior of PL/pgSQL function following drop and re-create of a table that it uses

(adding back the list)

On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 8:24 PM David G. Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 7:54 PM Bryn Llewellyn <bryn(at)yugabyte(dot)com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
> This is what I expected actually, though I can't point to exactly why.
>
>>
>> Where can I read what I need in order to understand the difference here,
>> using %rowtype, and in the first test that I posted, using %type?
>>
>
> I'm not certain there should be. Given the presence of the bug below and
> general infrequency of this scenario I wouldn't be totally surprised there
> is a bug here as well.
>

So I found where this difference in behavior is at least explicitly noted:

https://github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/401874ab020b44d8000ac90debef43a146b96d5a/src/pl/plpgsql/src/pl_comp.c#L2180

/*
* If it's a named composite type (or domain over one), find the typcache
* entry and record the current tupdesc ID, so we can detect changes
* (including drops). We don't currently support on-the-fly replacement
* of non-composite types, else we might want to do this for them too.
*/

If this limitation is documented in a user-facing manner I do not know
where.

David J.