Re: temporary tables, plpgsql and yes i bet this has been asked

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Temp tables are the wrong way to think about it.  *Any* invalidation
> >> of schema data referred to in a query plan should cause replanning.
> >> We have a TODO item covering this already, don't we?
> 
> > If we do, I don't see it.  Care to give me one?
> 
> Hmm, I don't see one either.  Odd, we've sure discussed it often enough.
> How about
> 
> * Flush cached query plans when their underlying catalog data changes

Yes, under DEPENDENCIE CHECKING.  Done.

> Probably belongs under "DEPENDENCY CHECKING".
> 
> 
> BTW, I was slightly startled to read this under URGENT:
> 
> * Allow row re-use without vacuum (Tom)
> 
> I don't consider this urgent or even likely ever to happen, and
> I certainly have not taken responsibility to do it.

Well, a name doesn't mean someone claimed it but rather the _expert_ on
the item.  I added this item assuming it was going to be accomplished
with some type of auto-vacuum.  I will clearify it to mention
auto-vacuum, if that is OK.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026