Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. # #================================================== [EMAIL PROTECTED] #
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
