Re: is necessary to recheck cached data in fn_extra? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Pavel Stehule
Subject Re: is necessary to recheck cached data in fn_extra?
Date
Msg-id CAFj8pRAjwA-cKbitW96-qUnzsmEqzkeGyZM9snqitM_NXLkUpQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to is necessary to recheck cached data in fn_extra?  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
List 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

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Grouping isolationtester tests in the schedule
Next
From: Justin Pryzby
Date:
Subject: crash 11.5~