| From: | PFC <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "James William Pye" <pgsql(at)jwp(dot)name>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_proc probin misuse |
| Date: | 2006-05-29 22:10:43 |
| Message-ID: | op.tab2j5ekcigqcu@apollo13 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hm, thinking again, I guess Tom Lane is right
>> Surely the initialization code would have to be run anyway ... and if
>> the function does import a pile of modules, do you really want to cache
>> all that in its pg_proc entry? What happens if some of the modules get
>> updated later?
Besides, what happens if you store compiled bytecode in a table, then
upgrade the python interpreter to a new version... would it be compatible
? I suppose so, but I don't really know...
Persistent connections should be used anyway, this makes the RAM caching
good...
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-05-29 23:27:37 | Re: Inefficient bytea escaping? |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-05-29 21:50:05 | Re: pg_proc probin misuse |