Re: cache invalidation for PL/pgsql functions

From: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: cache invalidation for PL/pgsql functions
Date: 2015-04-28 19:41:33
Message-ID: CAHyXU0wYKStLcAWy6CLEqwnoKZNtH3mPm-gGHdZGn41m0-tTWQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I hate to use the term "bug" for what somebody's probably going to
> tell me is acceptable behavior, but that seems like a bug. I guess
> the root of the problem is that PL/plgsql's cache invalidation logic
> only considers the pg_proc row's TID and xmin when deciding whether to
> recompile. For base types that's probably OK, but for composite
> types, not so much.

It was a missed case in the invalidation logic. plpgsql was
deliberately modified to invalidate plans upon schema changes -- this
is a way to outsmart that system. definitely a bug IMNSHO.

merlin

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2015-04-28 19:46:22 Re: COPY and file_fdw with fixed column widths
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2015-04-28 19:40:38 Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT syntax issues