From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Joshua Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Asko Oja <ascoja(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Martin Pihlak <martin(dot)pihlak(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures |
Date: | 2008-08-19 21:11:07 |
Message-ID: | 1219180267.7109.47.camel@huvostro |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 16:56 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > The actual criterion is not really "new user-visible feature" versus
> > "bug fix". It's more an attempt at measuring how large a potential
> > impact the change has. The patch I saw was introducing a whole new
> > message type to go through the shared invalidation queue, which is not
> > something to be taken lightly (consider that there are three message
> > types of messages currently.)
>
> I hadn't read it yet, but that makes it wrong already. There's no need
> for any new inval traffic --- the existing syscache inval messages on
> pg_proc entries should serve fine.
>
> More generally, if we are to try to invalidate on the strength of
> pg_proc changes, what of other DDL changes? Operators, operator
> classes, maybe? How about renaming a schema? I would like to see a
> line drawn between things we find worth trying to track and things we
> don't. If there is no such line, we're going to need a patch a lot
> larger than this one.
Or maybe a simpler and smaller patch - just invalidate everything on
every schema change :)
It will have a momentary impact on performance at DDL time, but
otherways might be more robust and easier to check for errors.
-------------
Hannu
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2008-08-19 21:17:25 | Re: Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures |
Previous Message | Joshua Drake | 2008-08-19 21:07:48 | Re: A smaller default postgresql.conf |