| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION vs ownership |
| Date: | 2009-10-02 15:55:28 |
| Message-ID: | 20FA930D-DB0E-4FEF-998D-0BDF50654399@kineticode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Oct 2, 2009, at 8:49 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> The ideal is that backends will start using the new function
> implementation on the next call after the REPLACE commits (but any
> evaluations already in progress must of course continue with the text
> they have). We have been gradually getting closer to that ideal over
> the years, although I think there are still cases where it will take a
> little longer --- for instance if a SQL function gets inlined I think
> the inlined code will persist for the duration of the query's
> execution.
> I don't believe there are still any cases where you actually have to
> reconnect to get it to notice the update.
>
> (At least this is true for plpgsql --- not sure if all the other PLs
> are equally up to speed.)
Ah, good to know. Perhaps an audit is in order…
Best,
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-10-02 16:39:08 | Re: CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION vs ownership |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-10-02 15:49:02 | Re: CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION vs ownership |