Re: [HACKERS] Cached plans and statement generalization

From: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
To: Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Cached plans and statement generalization
Date: 2020-07-01 09:18:52
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> On 1 Mar 2020, at 20:26, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> In short, I really think we ought to reject this patch and move on.
> Maybe it could be resurrected sometime in the future when we have a
> better handle on when to cache plans and when not.
> If you want to press forward with it anyway, certainly the lack of
> any tests in this patch is another big objection. Perhaps you
> could create a pgbench TAP script that exercises the logic.

Based on Tom's review, and that nothing has been submitted since, I've marked
this entry as returned with feedback. Feel to open a new entry if you want to
address Tom's comments and take this further.

cheers ./daniel

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message michael 2020-07-01 09:24:18 Re: Ought to use heap_multi_insert() for pg_attribute/depend insertions?
Previous Message vignesh C 2020-07-01 09:16:19 Re: Parallel copy