| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>, Radosław Smogura <rsmogura(at)softperience(dot)eu>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL JDBC List <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org>, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: [JDBC] Support for JDBC setQueryTimeout, et al. |
| Date: | 2010-10-15 20:22:51 |
| Message-ID: | 11068.1287174171@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-jdbc |
Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
>> The whole problem with search_path and role is very frustrating. We've
>> taken to just hacking things to be dynamic SQL whenever it's
>> role-specific, but that's a really poor solution. I wonder if it would
>> be possible to have the function and prepare'd plan caches be key'd off
>> of the search_path and role too..? So if you change one of those you
>> end up having to re-plan it, but then that's also cached, etc..
FWIW, I can see the point of making cached plan lookup be
search-path-specific. But why does the active role need to factor
into it?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2010-10-15 20:45:18 | Trailing Whitespace Tips (was: Re: starting to review the Extend NOT NULL representation to pg_constraint patch) |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2010-10-15 20:14:40 | Re: [JDBC] Support for JDBC setQueryTimeout, et al. |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2010-10-15 20:58:15 | Re: [JDBC] Support for JDBC setQueryTimeout, et al. |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2010-10-15 20:14:40 | Re: [JDBC] Support for JDBC setQueryTimeout, et al. |