On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > * Merlin Moncure (mmonc...@gmail.com) wrote: >> this is a problem. under what circumstances would you want to discard >> them and why? the main problem I see with cached plpgsql plans is >> interactions with search_path -- but DISCARD might not be the best way >> to attack that problem. There might be other reasons though. > > interaction w/ search_path (or, rather, lack of respect for it..) is > exactly the issue here for me.
this has been discussed a couple of times -- a plausible alternative might be to adjust the plan caching mechanism to organize the plan cache around search_path. that way you get a separate plan per search_path instance. discard has zero backwards compatibility issues but has one big problem -- if you are using combination of connection pooling, lots of plpgsql and search_path manipulation, you take a big performance hit. in other words, even if you can discard everything., do you really want to? merlin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
