"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 12:22 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> A. Just accept the extra overhead, thereby preserving the current
>> behavior of unnamed statements, and gaining the benefit that plan
>> invalidation will work correctly in the few cases where an unna
On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 12:22 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> A. Just accept the extra overhead, thereby preserving the current
> behavior of unnamed statements, and gaining the benefit that plan
> invalidation will work correctly in the few cases where an unnamed
> statement's plan lasts long enough to ne
Tom Lane wrote:
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Can we forcibly discard it if *any* messages are received that might
invalidate a plan? So basically it would work fine unless anyone in the system
does any DDL at all? I guess that has the downside of introducing random
unpredictable
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Can we forcibly discard it if *any* messages are received that might
> invalidate a plan? So basically it would work fine unless anyone in the system
> does any DDL at all? I guess that has the downside of introducing random
> unpredictable failures.
Ugh
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> B. Don't store the unnamed statement in the plan cache. To make sure
> it's not used anymore when the plan might be stale, forcibly discard
> the unnamed statement after execution. This would get rid of a lot
> of overhead but would mean a significant ch
