Gregory Stark wrote:
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
There doesn't seem to be any very nice way to fix this. There is
not any existing support mechanism (comparable to query_tree_walker)
for scanning whole plan trees, which means that searching a cached plan
for regclass Consts is going
I wrote:
> Well, we *have* the sequence's Oid in the regclass constant, the problem
> is the difficulty of digging through the plan tree to find it. I did
> consider having the planner extract it and save it aside somewhere, but
> there doesn't seem to be any very convenient place to do that, shor
"Florian G. Pflug" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Gregory Stark wrote:
>> Given that sequences are in fact relations is there some way to work around
>> the issue at least in this case by stuffing the sequence's relid someplace
>> which the plan invalldation code can check for it?
Well, we *have* t
Gregory Stark wrote:
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
There doesn't seem to be any very nice way to fix this. There is
not any existing support mechanism (comparable to query_tree_walker)
for scanning whole plan trees, which means that searching a cached plan
for regclass Consts is going
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There doesn't seem to be any very nice way to fix this. There is
> not any existing support mechanism (comparable to query_tree_walker)
> for scanning whole plan trees, which means that searching a cached plan
> for regclass Consts is going to involve a ch
Tom Lane wrote:
> ... We might want to do that someday --- in particular,
> if we ever try to extend the plan inval mechanism to react to
> redefinitions of non-table objects, we'd likely need some such thing
> anyway. I'm disinclined to try to do it for 8.3 though. The use-case
> for temp sequen