Re: is necessary to recheck cached data in fn_extra?
От | Pavel Stehule |
---|---|
Тема | Re: is necessary to recheck cached data in fn_extra? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAFj8pRAjwA-cKbitW96-qUnzsmEqzkeGyZM9snqitM_NXLkUpQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | is necessary to recheck cached data in fn_extra? (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
st 7. 8. 2019 v 18:39 odesílatel Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> napsal:
Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes:
> st 7. 8. 2019 v 17:39 odesílatel Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> napsal:
>> I wouldn't trust that. You don't really know what the lifespan of
>> a fn_extra cache is.
> fn_extra cache cannot be longer than query.
There are fn_extra caches that are not tied to queries. Admittedly
they're for special purposes like I/O functions and index support
functions, and maybe you can assume that your function can't be
used in such ways. I don't think it's a great programming model
though.
> And if I understand well, then
> is not possible to change parameter types inside query?
Most places dealing with composite types assume that the rowtype *could*
change intraquery. I believe this was a live possibility in the past,
though it might not be today. (The issue was inheritance queries, but
I think we now force tuples from child tables to be converted to the
parent rowtype. Whether that's 100% bulletproof is unclear.) If you're
not dealing with composites then it's an okay assumption. I think.
ok, thank you for your reply.
Regards
Pavel
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: