| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] GIN improvements |
| Date: | 2009-02-04 21:49:37 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070902041349u1442bfe4jcf87334f5a568b33@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> 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?
>
> Anyway, it just strikes me as strange to expect a plan to be a good plan
> for very long. Can you think of an example where we applied this rule
> before?
Well, I am not an expert on this topic.
But, plans for prepared statements and statements within PL/pgsql
functions are cached for the lifetime of the session, which in some
situations could be quite long.
I would think that invalidating significantly more often would be bad
for performance.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2009-02-04 21:56:11 | Re: Auto-updated fields |
| Previous Message | Stanislav Lacko | 2009-02-04 21:42:46 | Is a plan for lmza commpression in pg_dump |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-02-09 19:54:05 | Re: [PATCHES] GIN improvements |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-02-04 21:23:09 | Re: [PATCHES] GIN improvements |