Re: Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dimitri Fontaine
Subject Re: Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures
Date
Msg-id 76CBE020-FBE1-4019-AF95-9043A2721810@hi-media.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures  (Hannu Krosing <hannu@2ndQuadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

Le 19 août 08 à 19:06, Tom Lane a écrit :
> Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine@hi-media.com> writes:
>> Another thing I do not understand well is how people are expected
>> to work in
>> 8.3 with a function based API, without hitting Skype problems.
>
> What we've got at this point is a submitted patch for a new feature
> that hasn't even been accepted into HEAD yet.  Lobbying to get it
> back-patched is entirely inappropriate IMHO.

Well, there's a misunderstanding here. I certainly were lobbying for
considering a backpatch as I saw it as a bugfix. You told me it's a
new feature, I say ok for not backpatching, obviously.

This mail was a real attempt at learning some tips to be able to push
the functions usage as far as Skype is doing, in 8.3 release, and
avoiding the trap which has always existed in released PostgreSQL
version. This certainly was a bad attempt at it.

Now, my understanding is that rolling out new versions of functions
requires forcing dropping all current opened sessions as soon as
PostgreSQL considers you need to drop any function. I'll think about
it in next project design meetings.

Regards,
- --
dim


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)

iEYEARECAAYFAkirHlEACgkQlBXRlnbh1bk4YQCgswDS1bu+P+N7yKJvwnRAWnL3
FYkAnRZQzqbEoahShh/Qz9mnrIm1e99y
=hIBt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Joshua Drake
Date:
Subject: Re: A smaller default postgresql.conf
Next
From: Dimitri Fontaine
Date:
Subject: Re: Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures