| From: | "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Plan invalidation |
| Date: | 2007-04-03 18:27:56 |
| Message-ID: | 2e78013d0704031127x205d141eld64c70eedb61d175@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 4/3/07, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
>
>
> I'm not particularly worried about missing a potential improvement
> in the plan during the first command after a change is committed.
Me too. Just noticed it, so brought it up.
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.
>
>
>
Oh yes, I was wondering about the other parts of the code, not
plan invalidation. Never mind, it was just a thought.
Thanks,
Pavan
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-04-03 18:47:25 | Re: Plan invalidation |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-04-03 18:15:52 | Re: Plan invalidation |