From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Plan invalidation |
Date: | 2007-04-03 18:15:52 |
Message-ID: | 10638.1175624152@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> I traced it a bit and it seems that the invalidation messages
> are not accepted in session 2 because the locks are already held
> on the relation.
Right, because of this coding in LockRelationOid():
/*
* Now that we have the lock, check for invalidation messages, so that we
* will update or flush any stale relcache entry before we try to use it.
* We can skip this in the not-uncommon case that we already had the same
* type of lock being requested, since then no one else could have
* modified the relcache entry in an undesirable way. (In the case where
* our own xact modifies the rel, the relcache update happens via
* CommandCounterIncrement, not here.)
*/
if (res != LOCKACQUIRE_ALREADY_HELD)
AcceptInvalidationMessages();
We could remove the optimization and do AcceptInvalidationMessages
always, but I think that cure would be a great deal worse than the
disease --- it would hugely increase the contention for SInvalLock.
I'm not particularly worried about missing a potential improvement
in the plan during the first command after a change is committed.
If the invalidation were something that *had* to be accounted for,
such as a dropped index, then there should be adequate locking for it;
plancache is not introducing any new bug that wasn't there before.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2007-04-03 18:27:56 | Re: Plan invalidation |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-04-03 18:14:24 | Re: notification payloads |