On 10/12/2015 06:53 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
>> On 2015-10-09 14:32:44 +0800, Victor Blomqvist wrote:
>>> CREATE FUNCTION select_users(id_ integer) RETURNS SETOF users AS
>>> $$
>>> BEGIN
>>> RETURN QUERY SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = id_;
>>> END;
>>> $$ LANGUAGE plpgsql;
>
>> My guess is that the problem here is that table level locking prevents
>> modification of the "users" type when the table is used, but there's no
>> locking preventing the columns to be dropped while the function is
>> used. So what happens is that 1) the function is parsed & planned 2)
>> DROP COLUMN is executed 3) the contained statement is executed 4) a
>> mismatch between the contained statement and the function definition is
>> detected.
>
> The query plan as such does get refreshed, I believe. The problem is that
> plpgsql has no provision for the definition of a named composite type to
> change after a function's been parsed. This applies to variables of named
> composite types for sure, and based on this example I think it must apply
> to the function result type as well, though I'm too lazy to go check the
> code right now.
That makes sense. The problem is that I cannot square that with Albe's
example, which I tested also:
"
Session 1:
test=> CREATE TABLE users (id integer PRIMARY KEY, name varchar NOT
NULL, to_be_removed integer NOT NULL);
CREATE TABLE
test=> CREATE FUNCTION select_users(id_ integer) RETURNS SETOF users AS
$$BEGIN RETURN QUERY SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = id_; END;$$
LANGUAGE plpgsql;
CREATE FUNCTION
Session 2:
test=> SELECT id, name FROM select_users(18);
id | name
----+------
(0 rows)
Ok, now the plan is cached.
Now in Session 1:
test=> ALTER TABLE users DROP COLUMN to_be_removed;
ALTER TABLE
Session2:
test=> SELECT id, name FROM select_users(18);
id | name
----+------
(0 rows)
No error. This is 9.4.4.
"
>
> We have had past discussions about fixing this. I believe it would
> require getting rid of use of plpgsql's "row" infrastructure for named
> composites, at least in most cases, and going over to the "record"
> infrastructure instead. In the past the conversations have stalled as
> soon as somebody complained that that would probably make some operations
> slower. I don't entirely understand that objection, since (a) some other
> operations would probably get faster, and (b) performance does not trump
> correctness. But that's where the discussion stands at the moment.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com