Re: [PATCHES] GIN improvements - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jeff Davis
Subject Re: [PATCHES] GIN improvements
Date
Msg-id 1233782589.3805.12.camel@dell.linuxdev.us.dell.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCHES] GIN improvements  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [PATCHES] GIN improvements  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Re: [PATCHES] GIN improvements  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 14:40 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> Well, there's nothing to force that plan to be invalidated when the
> state of the pending list changes, is there?
> 

Would it be unreasonable to invalidate cached plans during the pending
list cleanup?

Anyway, it just strikes me as strange to expect a plan to be a good plan
for very long. Can you think of an example where we applied this rule
before?

Regards,Jeff Davis



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Kenneth Marshall
Date:
Subject: Re: on hash indexes
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] GIN improvements