On Wed, 2008-08-20 at 08:50 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > Asko Oja wrote: > > I do get the impression that Tom who would prefer to get all the pl's > > out of PostgreSQL and live happily ever after with pure SQL standard. > > > > > > I have not seen the slightest evidence of this, and don't believe it for > a minute. > > I understand some of the frustration you are feeling, but statements > like this don't help anything.
Claiming that problems with functions are a "corner case" seems to indicate that kind of attitude. OTOH, it may still be, that building really large and complex live (evolving) databases using postgreSQL is also still a "corner case", so any bug/limitation that manifests itself when doing DDL under 24/7 database carrying big loads is a "corner case" > (And yes, I too have recently been bitten nastily by cached plan > problems, and want to see them fixed. I rather like Simon's suggestion > of a command or function that would clear the plan cache.) I guess this would be more robust. Mostly we use _dependencies_ to forbid stuff or to do DROP CASCADE, that is, to enforce user-visible behaviour. Cache invalidation seems much lighter and safer operations. We could even add an option to do a global cache invalidation at the end of any transaction which does DDL. That would of course need automatic re-planning the invalidated queries and keeping some intermediate form of query (with original * expanded to col lists, maybe something else, basically the same as is currently saved for view's) in order to do so. ----- Hannu -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
