Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: pg_proc probin misuse

From: PFC <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com>
To: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "James William Pye" <pgsql(at)jwp(dot)name>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_proc probin misuse
Date: 2006-05-29 22:10:43
Message-ID: op.tab2j5ekcigqcu@apollo13 (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
	Hm, thinking again, I guess Tom Lane is right

>> Surely the initialization code would have to be run anyway ... and if
>> the function does import a pile of modules, do you really want to cache
>> all that in its pg_proc entry?  What happens if some of the modules get
>> updated later?

	Besides, what happens if you store compiled bytecode in a table, then  
upgrade the python interpreter to a new version... would it be compatible  
? I suppose so, but I don't really know...
	Persistent connections should be used anyway, this makes the RAM caching  
good...

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2006-05-29 23:27:37
Subject: Re: Inefficient bytea escaping?
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2006-05-29 21:50:05
Subject: Re: pg_proc probin misuse

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group