On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 12:58 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 12:31 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> It might be possible to incorporate this pointer into PlannedStmt
> >> instead of passing it separately.
>
> > Yeah, that would be less churn. Though, I wonder if you still hold
> > that PlannedStmt should not be scribbled upon outside the planner as
> > you said upthread [1]?
>
> Well, the whole point of that rule is that the executor can't modify
> a plancache entry. If the plancache itself sets a field in such an
> entry, that doesn't seem problematic from here.
>
> But there's other possibilities if that bothers you; QueryDesc
> could hold the field, for example. Also, I bet we'd want to copy
> it into EState for the main initialization recursion.
QueryDesc sounds good to me, and yes, also a copy in EState in any case.
So I started looking at the call sites of CreateQueryDesc() and
stopped to look at ExecParallelGetQueryDesc(). AFAICS, we wouldn't
need to pass the CachedPlan to a parallel worker's rerun of
InitPlan(), because 1) it doesn't make sense to call the plancache in
a parallel worker, 2) the leader should already have taken all the
locks in necessary for executing a given plan subnode that it intends
to pass to a worker in ExecInitGather(). Does that make sense?
--
Thanks, Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
