On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 8:51 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I wouldn't think that it would be that much of a performance loss (except for DDL type things where you were setting up the dependency in the first place) though you would certainly know better than me. In any case, I know it would be a lot of work and I wasn't suggesting doing it all at once, but rather as a rule of thumb going forward - a continuous improvement to be made as other work is done. If people in a better position than I to gage this really think performance would suffer a great deal or that it's not doable (or shouldn't be done), I respect that. It seems that we should at least give warnings where we can though and probably doc it somewhere. "hey user, you replaced a plpgsql function that was used in an index, your index may now be invalid. Please see deatils at xyz".
There's no way at all in the general case (a function name could be
passed as a parameter, for example). I think Matthew is suggesting to
track dependencies at run time, but that seems a recipe for burnt
fingers and an overall performance loss, for what seems a dubious gain.
I wouldn't think that it would be that much of a performance loss (except for DDL type things where you were setting up the dependency in the first place) though you would certainly know better than me. In any case, I know it would be a lot of work and I wasn't suggesting doing it all at once, but rather as a rule of thumb going forward - a continuous improvement to be made as other work is done. If people in a better position than I to gage this really think performance would suffer a great deal or that it's not doable (or shouldn't be done), I respect that. It seems that we should at least give warnings where we can though and probably doc it somewhere. "hey user, you replaced a plpgsql function that was used in an index, your index may now be invalid. Please see deatils at xyz".
