RE: [HACKERS] Bug report for 7.0beta1 in 'CREATE FUNCTION...' - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Hiroshi Inoue
Subject RE: [HACKERS] Bug report for 7.0beta1 in 'CREATE FUNCTION...'
Date
Msg-id 000701bf8342$ebc500e0$2801007e@tpf.co.jp
Whole thread Raw
In response to RE: [HACKERS] Bug report for 7.0beta1 in 'CREATE FUNCTION...'  ("Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>)
List pgsql-hackers
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
> [mailto:owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org]On Behalf Of Hiroshi Inoue
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2000 11:06 AM
> To: The Hermit Hacker
> Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
> Subject: RE: [HACKERS] Bug report for 7.0beta1 in 'CREATE FUNCTION...'
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> > [mailto:owner-pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of The Hermit
> > Hacker
> > 
> > 
> > Can someone look into this, and followup with Don? :)
> >
> 
> Currently utility commands aren't executable in PL/pgSQL.
> In short,it's due the lack of implementation of copyObject()
> for UtilityStatements.
> However,there's another essential problem.
> 
> PL/pgSQL caches prepared plans for fucntions at their
> first execution time. Though many oids/numbers ... exist
> in the cached plans,they are changed by DML statements                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Oops sorry,DDL not DML statement.

> and cached plans would become invalid. Currently once
> a plan is cached,it stays in TopMemoryContext forever
> and would never be removed/changed.
> 



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] minor bug in 7.0: casting
Next
From: Thomas Lockhart
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] prob with aggregate and group by - returns multiplesh