On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 03:44:25PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Fuhr <mike@fuhr.org> writes:
> > Would LOAD 'plpgsql' work? Would that cause a fresh compile of the
> > function the next time it's called, resulting in a new cached plan?
>
> I think that would cause plpgsql to lose track of its entire function
> table, which is a brute force way of doing that ... but it doesn't
> really solve Nicola's problem, because the nasty part of this is
> plans that are already cached by other backends.
Yeah, I was just mentioning a way to avoid having to reconnect the
current session if you know you've altered a table. In another
message I suggested using EXECUTE to prevent plans from being
cached -- is there a better way in the current implementation?
--
Michael Fuhr
http://www.fuhr.org/~mfuhr/
