Re: Behavior of PL/pgSQL function following drop and re-create of a table that it uses
| От | David G. Johnston |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Behavior of PL/pgSQL function following drop and re-create of a table that it uses |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAKFQuwbhwM1OyzEp=JkW2KfsVGE6CDwMMMJjrX34HS_6rsErEQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Behavior of PL/pgSQL function following drop and re-create of a table that it uses (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Список | pgsql-general |
On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 9:49 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> So I found where this difference in behavior is at least explicitly noted:
>/*
> * If it's a named composite type (or domain over one), find the typcache
> * entry and record the current tupdesc ID, so we can detect changes
> * (including drops). We don't currently support on-the-fly replacement
> * of non-composite types, else we might want to do this for them too.
> */
I'm not quite sure that that's related, really. That code is concerned
with detecting changes to an already-identified type (that is, type
OID NNN has different details now than it did before). It seemed to
me that Bryn's question was more about reacting to cases where a given
string of source code would resolve to a different type OID than it
did a moment ago.
Sorta, and now I see why %TYPE doesn't work but %ROWTYPE does - a change in the former is necessarily a new OID while a change to the later will have the same OID but a different internal structure that the type reference compiled into the function can leverage to be resolve its structure at runtime.
Of course, I went from almost clueless to this answer in just over an hour so it is possible I'm wrong. But it seems to fit so far.
David J.
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: