PFC <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com> writes:
> Do the parse tree store fully qualified "schema.table" or
> "schema.function" ?
They store OIDs.
> I mean, if table T is mentioned in a parse tree which is stored, and the
> table is later dropped and recreated... or a column dropped... what
> happens ?
Dependencies take care of that --- if you drop the table, the statement
goes away too.
>> I also wonder whether statements should belong to schemas...
> Since they are basically an extremely simple form of a function, why not ?
> (but since part of the goodness on prepared statements is that they are
> stored in a fast hash cache, wouldn't that add too much overhead ?)
The lookup overhead would be trivial, I expect, compared to everything
else involved in a query. But what you'd have to work out is the
interaction between that and ordinary prepared statements, which
traditionally haven't had a schema name attached to the statement name.
(Come to think of it, if there's a statement FOO and I explicitly do
PREPARE FOO, what happens? Should the result depend on whether I've
used FOO earlier in the session?)
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-03-31 15:32:43|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] ANALYZE getting dead tuple count hopelessly wrong |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-03-31 14:16:44|
|Subject: Re: Commit fest status |