Tom Lane wrote:
> Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Another little problem is that plpgsql doesn't really have any mechanism
>>> for invalidating cached stuff at all; it will leak memory like there's
>>> no tomorrow if we start dropping cached subplans.
>
>> Everyone seems to look at it as a PL/pgSQL specific problem. It is not!
>
> No, of course not, but plpgsql has issues of its own that (IMHO) should
> be solved along with the SPI-level problem.
Not sure what you mean by that. Is it the execution plan shortcut stuff
for simple expressions (you know, the faked econtext to evaluate just a
function call) that you want to move into SPI as well?
>
>> As said, the idea is neither bad, nor new. And please let's not forget
>> to add temp object detection into the dependency collector so that SPI
>> automagically will handle temp tables used in PL/pgSQL by NOT storing
>> prepared plans at all.
>
> Why shouldn't we cache plans for temp tables? They are good as long as
> the temp table exists. AFAICS the same dependency mechanism will work
> fine for temp and regular tables.
Good point. So you mean to call the SPI functionality to mark plans for
recompile at temp object destruction as well.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #