Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Plan invalidation

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Plan invalidation
Date: 2007-04-03 18:47:25
Message-ID: 11021.1175626045@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On 4/3/07, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> If the invalidation were something that *had* to be accounted for,
>> such as a dropped index, then there should be adequate locking for it;
>> plancache is not introducing any new bug that wasn't there before.
>> 
> Oh yes, I was wondering about the other parts of the code, not
> plan invalidation. Never mind, it was just a thought.

Well, as that comment notes, we've always had to worry about being sure
that the relcache data structures are up-to-date (or sufficiently
up-to-date, anyway).  I think it's reasonably well debugged.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-04-03 19:02:56
Subject: Re: "Garbled" postgres logs
Previous:From: Pavan DeolaseeDate: 2007-04-03 18:27:56
Subject: Re: Plan invalidation

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group