Re: Plan invalidation vs temp sequences

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Plan invalidation vs temp sequences
Date: 2007-10-11 15:17:32
Message-ID: 14145.1192115852@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I wrote:
> Well, we *have* the sequence's Oid in the regclass constant, the problem
> is the difficulty of digging through the plan tree to find it. I did
> consider having the planner extract it and save it aside somewhere, but
> there doesn't seem to be any very convenient place to do that, short of
> an extra traversal of the query tree, which is pretty annoying/expensive
> for data that will probably never be needed for most queries.

Actually ... now that I've consumed a bit more caffeine, it seems this
could be done relatively cheaply in setrefs.c. We could add a
list-of-relation-OIDs to PlannedStmt, and charge setrefs.c with creating
the list, and simplify plancache.c to just use list_member_oid() instead
of groveling over the rangetable for itself. I'll go try that out.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alexey Klyukin 2007-10-11 15:25:38 Re: Some questions about mammoth replication
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-10-11 15:07:20 Re: full text search in 8.3