* Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> Really it seems to me that changing the search path ought to discard
> anything that might have been done differently had the search path
> been different, but I don't think that's back-patch material.
I like that idea, but I agree it wouldn't be back-patchable, and I could
see arguments against it also (convoluting the GUC mechanics, etc).
> > Making it part of DISCARD PLANS; and back-patching it to 8.3 where
> > DISCARD was introduced would be awesome for me. :)
> I'd need to look at this more closely before committing anything, but
> at first blush I think that's reasonable. Have a patch?
Sadly, no.. To be honest, I was fully expecting a response of "that's
hard to do." I'm not sure we have any mechanics in place for throwing
away stored procedure plans, but I'll go look and see if I can come up
with something. Would *love* to get this fixed.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: David Fetter||Date: 2011-01-07 15:52:51|
|Subject: Re: LOCK for non-tables|
|Previous:||From: Garick Hamlin||Date: 2011-01-07 15:47:46|
|Subject: Re: Streaming base backups|