On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 03:44:25PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Michael Fuhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Would LOAD 'plpgsql' work? Would that cause a fresh compile of the > > function the next time it's called, resulting in a new cached plan? > > I think that would cause plpgsql to lose track of its entire function > table, which is a brute force way of doing that ... but it doesn't > really solve Nicola's problem, because the nasty part of this is > plans that are already cached by other backends.
Yeah, I was just mentioning a way to avoid having to reconnect the current session if you know you've altered a table. In another message I suggested using EXECUTE to prevent plans from being cached -- is there a better way in the current implementation? -- Michael Fuhr http://www.fuhr.org/~mfuhr/ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
