| From: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>, PostgreSQL HACKERS <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Rule recompilation |
| Date: | 2001-07-13 00:42:19 |
| Message-ID: | 3B4E43EB.619DD9F1@tpf.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> writes:
>
> What everyone else is telling you is that we should strive to do the
> same, not punt and make the user tell us when to recompile.
>
In Oracle, objects like views, functions and triggers are
just marked INVALID when an object to which they make
reference is changed. INVALID objects are recompiled when
they are needed. in particular, if a table was dropped and
a table is created with the same name then the objects which
make reference (directly/indirectly) to the table would
revive.
We would have to reconsider *alter table .. rename ..* ..
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-07-13 01:37:18 | Re: Rule recompilation |
| Previous Message | Adam Manock | 2001-07-13 00:32:10 | Re: Performance tuning for linux, 1GB RAM, dual CPU? |