From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Transient plans versus the SPI API |
Date: | 2011-08-04 23:56:13 |
Message-ID: | 1312502173.21934.9.camel@jdavis-ux.asterdata.local |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2011-08-03 at 12:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Of course we could address the worst cases by providing some mechanism
> to tell the plancache code "always use a generic plan for this query"
> or "always use a custom plan". I'm not entirely thrilled with that,
> because it's effectively a planner hint and has got the same problems
> as all planner hints, namely that users are likely to get it wrong.
I'm not entirely convinced by that. It's fairly challenging for a human
to choose a good plan for a moderately complex SQL query, and its much
more likely that the plan will become a bad one over time. But, in many
cases, a developer knows if they simply don't care about planning time,
and are willing to always replan.
Also, we have a fairly reasonable model for planning SQL queries, but
I'm not sure that the model for determining whether to replan a SQL
query is quite as clear. Simon brought up some useful points along these
lines.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2011-08-04 23:58:42 | Re: Transient plans versus the SPI API |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-08-04 23:52:45 | Re: plperl crash with Debian 6 (64 bit), pl/perlu, libwww and https |