| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures |
| Date: | 2008-08-19 23:45:16 |
| Message-ID: | 14897.1219189516@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> If there is plan invalidation then you just change called1() to return
> one more field and that's it - no juggling with C) and D) and generally
> less things that can go wrong.
That is a pure flight of fancy. Adjusting a function's API generally
requires source-code changes on the caller side too. There might be
a few limited cases where you can avoid that, but that doesn't leave
you with much of an argument that this is a critical bug fix. It's
a corner case and little more.
FWIW, given that there will probably always be corner cases. I can see
the attraction in Simon's suggestion of providing a way to manually
issue a system-wide forced plan flush.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2008-08-19 23:53:02 | Re: Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-08-19 23:32:25 | Re: Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures |