"Bruce Momjian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > This highlights another problem with our plpgsql function caching.
> >
> > It's a little disturbing to think that any change in SEARCH_PATH might
> > force us to discard all cached plans. That could be expensive; and
> > consider a function that deliberately sets SEARCH_PATH to ensure that
> > it gets the tables it wants. You wouldn't want such a function to be
> > unable to cache any plans across calls (not to mention blowing away
> > every other function's plans, too).
> >
> > We'd probably better record with each plan the SEARCH_PATH it was
> > generated with. Then, as long as that matches the current setting,
> > we can re-use the plan.
> >
> > Of course, none of this is going to happen until someone gets around to
> > creating infrastructure for flushing cached plans at need. Right at the
> > moment the answer is going to have to be "don't do that".
>
> Yep. I was just surprised it highlighted another failure of cached
> plans.
There is already a TODO for it ?
Regards
Gaetano Mendola
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match
