| From: | Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, Lukas Fittl <lukas(at)fittl(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_plan_advice |
| Date: | 2026-04-04 21:02:37 |
| Message-ID: | 2e7bdb5d-68ba-4c65-9931-a865ab6fc3d2@gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 4/4/26 20:42, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 4, 2026 at 5:34 AM Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> By the way, I'm really glad you hit that error. That particular error
> check is there precisely to find plans that pg_plan_advice isn't able
> to understand, and it sounds like it is doing its job as intended.
> Having problems isn't great, but knowing that you have problems is a
> lot better than still having them but not knowing about it.
That’s exactly what concerns me. I see it as a potential design flaw if
the extension has to make assumptions about possible plan configurations.
I’m not sure how it works in detail, of course. However, when I designed
Postgres replanning in the past, and made similar core changes to what
you’ve done for pg_plan_advice, this kind of problem couldn’t have
happened. So, I think it’s worth questioning the current approach and
looking for other options.
--
regards, Andrei Lepikhov,
pgEdge
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2026-04-04 21:52:02 | Re: TupleDescAttr bounds checks |
| Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2026-04-04 20:38:03 | Unused injection point in hash agg code |