Re: [Slony1-general] Re: dangling lock information?

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
To: Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [Slony1-general] Re: dangling lock information?
Date: 2005-08-30 18:13:57
Message-ID: 20050830181357.GB20513@surnet.cl
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 12:45:18PM -0400, Chris Browne wrote:
> dparker(at)tazznetworks(dot)com ("David Parker") writes:
> > The slony log trigger saves execution plans, so any given connection
> > that has been used with a slony schema installed will have cached OIDs
> > referring to the sl_log_1 table. When you drop the schema, those OIDs
> > obviously go away. When you re-create the schema, and try to use the old
> > connection, it still has the old plan cached in it, so the OIDs in the
> > plan are out of sync with what actually exists in the database.
> >
> > This is the behavior I've observed in our environment, anyway. The
> > problem always shows up when slony is RE-installed under an outstanding
> > connection.
>
> I have observed much the same behaviour...
>
> It would be really useful to have some guidance as to how to resolve
> this.
>
> What is needed is to invalidate the cached execution plans.

The simplest way to do that is to disconnect the client, and start a
fresh session.

> Unfortunately, it's not at all obvious how to accomplish that :-(.

I don't think it can be easily done with the current code. This is
plpgsql code, right? There are some ways to cause recompilation for
those, at least on the 8.1 code I'm looking at.

--
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre[]alvh.no-ip.org> Architect, www.EnterpriseDB.com
"Si quieres ser creativo, aprende el arte de perder el tiempo"

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Neil Conway 2005-08-30 18:54:59 Re: [Slony1-general] Re: dangling lock information?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-08-30 18:07:09 Re: [Slony1-general] Re: dangling lock information?