From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: DISCARD ALL ; stored procedures |
Date: | 2011-01-06 22:09:12 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTimkx-973KnJ8oj4uNi286t3u8pSdK3Y0sRasw=n@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> * Merlin Moncure (mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
>> this is a problem. under what circumstances would you want to discard
>> them and why? the main problem I see with cached plpgsql plans is
>> interactions with search_path -- but DISCARD might not be the best way
>> to attack that problem. There might be other reasons though.
>
> interaction w/ search_path (or, rather, lack of respect for it..) is
> exactly the issue here for me.
this has been discussed a couple of times -- a plausible alternative
might be to adjust the plan caching mechanism to organize the plan
cache around search_path. that way you get a separate plan per
search_path instance.
discard has zero backwards compatibility issues but has one big
problem -- if you are using combination of connection pooling, lots of
plpgsql and search_path manipulation, you take a big performance hit.
in other words, even if you can discard everything., do you really
want to?
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2011-01-06 22:22:10 | Re: DISCARD ALL ; stored procedures |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2011-01-06 21:30:50 | Re: DISCARD ALL ; stored procedures |