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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
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

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2007-04-03 19:02:56 Re: "Garbled" postgres logs
Previous Message Pavan Deolasee 2007-04-03 18:27:56 Re: Plan invalidation