Thread: is necessary to recheck cached data in fn_extra?
Hi
I should to use a cache accessed via fn_extra. There will be stored data about function parameters (types). If I understand correctly, these data should be stable in query, and then recheck is not necessary. Is it true?
Regards
Pavel
Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes: > I should to use a cache accessed via fn_extra. There will be stored data > about function parameters (types). If I understand correctly, these data > should be stable in query, and then recheck is not necessary. Is it true? I wouldn't trust that. You don't really know what the lifespan of a fn_extra cache is. regards, tom lane
On 08/07/19 11:39, Tom Lane wrote: > Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes: >> I should to use a cache accessed via fn_extra. There will be stored data >> about function parameters (types). If I understand correctly, these data >> should be stable in query, and then recheck is not necessary. Is it true? > > I wouldn't trust that. You don't really know what the lifespan of > a fn_extra cache is. It is going to be either the last thing I put there, or NULL, right? So a null check is sufficient? Other than when the SRF_* api has commandeered it for other purposes? Regards, -Chap
st 7. 8. 2019 v 17:39 odesílatel Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> napsal:
Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes:
> I should to use a cache accessed via fn_extra. There will be stored data
> about function parameters (types). If I understand correctly, these data
> should be stable in query, and then recheck is not necessary. Is it true?
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. And if I understand well, then is not possible to change parameter types inside query?
Pavel
regards, tom lane
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. regards, tom lane
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