Re: Effects of GUC settings on automatic replans

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Effects of GUC settings on automatic replans
Date: 2007-03-21 14:56:23
Message-ID: 28192.1174488983@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> sql_inheritance is a little bit
>> bigger deal, but I wonder whether we shouldn't just remove that variable
>> altogether --- it's been default ON since 7.1 and I've not heard anyone
>> complain about that in a long time.

> Let's do a quick survey on a couple mailing lists.

OK, I sent out a note to pgsql-general and pgsql-sql about that.

> For that matter, can anyone think why we'd need a command for the
> superuser to flush all plans in the server?

You mean, not only the current backend but other people's backends?
I can't see any very simple way to do that, and without a pretty
compelling use-case I'm not going to worry about it.

So far nobody's commented on the question of exactly what should be
saved and restored for a cached query's search_path. I think for the
moment I will go with the save-a-list-of-schema-OIDs approach, since
that seems fairly unlikely to be subvertible by a miscreant user.
We can always change the details later.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2007-03-21 15:01:35 Remove add_missing_from_clause?
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2007-03-21 14:47:49 Re: CREATE INDEX and HOT - revised design