| From: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: GetCachedPlan() refactor: move execution lock acquisition out |
| Date: | 2026-04-16 02:50:22 |
| Message-ID: | CA+HiwqFYHj70DXvY6iSYteQv6VMEiT-wk3pvETXZMM-W1bb+dg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 16, 2026 at 11:35 AM Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Apr 15, 2026, at 21:46, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 15, 2026 at 11:14 AM Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 15, 2026 at 1:08 AM Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >>>> +static bool
> >>>> +LockCachedPlan(CachedPlan *cplan)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> + AcquireExecutorLocks(cplan->stmt_list, true);
> >>>> + if (!cplan->is_valid)
> >>>> + {
> >>>> + AcquireExecutorLocks(cplan->stmt_list, false);
> >>>> + return false;
> >>>> + }
> >>>> + return true;
> >>>> +}
> >>>
> >>> simply `return cplan->is_valid ` would be more Postgres-y here, isnt it?
> >>
> >> Agreed, will fix too.
> >
> > Thinking more about this bit, checking only cplan->is_valid after
> > locking is not really equivalent to what CheckCachedPlan() was doing
> > before.
> >
> > CheckCachedPlan() can also reset plan->is_valid based on other state
> > (role, xmin), whereas in v1 the new check relied only on lock inval
> > callbacks to have set is_valid to false. That means the new check is
> > not enough. It may happen to be okay for the current callers in this
> > patch, but it is not something I think is safe to rely on once there
> > are future callers that do arbitrary work, such as ExecutorPrep(),
> > even if carefully coded, between the original GetCachedPlan() /
> > CheckCachedPlan() step and the later recheck after locking.
> >
> > Separately, I also realized that v1 was introducing redundant lock
> > acquisition for freshly built plans, which is not really a no behavior
> > change refactoring either.
> >
> > So in v2 I ended up reworking two parts more substantially:
> >
> > * The patch now factors the reused-generic-plan validity logic into
> > RecheckCachedPlan().
> >
> > * It also adds an is_reused output argument to GetCachedPlan(), so
> > callers can distinguish the reused-plan case from a freshly built plan
> > and avoid the extra lock step in the latter case.
>
> V2 overall looks good, it preserves the current behavior.
>
> I just have a question. RecheckCachedPlan is only called by LockCachedPlan and CheckCachedPlan, and both callers are static, why RecheckCachedPlan is exported?
Oh, I thought someone would ask that. Yes, it could stay static in
plancache.c for now and only be exported later, when some future
smarter cached-plan locker outside plancache.c actually needs it.
--
Thanks, Amit Langote
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Langote | 2026-04-16 03:03:22 | Re: [PATCH] Fix wrong comment in JsonTablePlanJoinNextRow() |
| Previous Message | Chao Li | 2026-04-16 02:34:58 | Re: GetCachedPlan() refactor: move execution lock acquisition out |