Re: Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Fetter
Subject Re: Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures
Date
Msg-id 20080820022854.GA7447@fetter.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures  (Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek.Kotala@Sun.COM>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 09:50:53PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter <david@fetter.org> writes:
> > On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 07:45:16PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> FWIW, given that there will probably always be corner cases. I can
> >> see the attraction in Simon's suggestion of providing a way to
> >> manually issue a system-wide forced plan flush.
> 
> > Would that require a system-wide plan cache to implement?
> 
> No, just a function that can issue a suitable sinval message.
> 
> plancache.c would already respond in the desired way to a relcache inval
> message with OID = 0, though likely it'll be cleaner to invent an sinval
> message type specifically for the purpose.
> 
> One thing to think about is whether the flush should be truly
> system-wide or just database-wide.  I can see a lot more uses for the
> latter than the former --- I don't think there's a reason for cached
> plans to depend on any contents of the shared catalogs.

They might during an on-line upgrade.

Zdenek?

Cheers,
David.
-- 
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Adjusting debug_print_plan to be more useful by default
Next
From: Robert Treat
Date:
Subject: Re: A smaller default postgresql.conf