Re: [PATCHES] GIN improvements

Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> 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?

If the pending list cleanup is done by VACUUM then such an invalidation
already happens (VACUUM forces it after updating pg_class.reltuples/
relpages). What's bothering me is the lack of any reasonable mechanism
for invalidating plans in the other direction, ie when the list grows
past the threshold where this code wants to turn off indexscans. Since
the threshold depends on parameters that can vary across sessions, you'd
more or less have to send a global invalidation after every addition to
the list, in case that addition put it over the threshold in some other
session's view. That's unreasonably often, in my book.

Also, as mentioned earlier, I'm pretty down on the idea of a threshold
where indexscans suddenly turn off entirely; that's not my idea of how
the planner ought to work.

But the real bottom line is: if autovacuum is working properly, it
should clean up the index before the list ever gets to the point where
it'd be sane to turn off indexscans. So I don't see why we need to hack
the planner for this at all. If any hacking is needed, it should be
in the direction of making sure autovacuum puts sufficient priority
on this task.

regards, tom lane