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

Re: Plan invalidation

From: "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Plan invalidation
Date: 2007-04-03 18:27:56
Message-ID: 2e78013d0704031127x205d141eld64c70eedb61d175@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 4/3/07, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
>
>
> I'm not particularly worried about missing a potential improvement
> in the plan during the first command after a change is committed.



Me too. Just noticed it, so brought it up.


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.


Thanks,
Pavan


-- 

EnterpriseDB     http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-04-03 18:47:25
Subject: Re: Plan invalidation
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-04-03 18:15:52
Subject: Re: Plan invalidation

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