| From: | Keisuke Kuroda <keisuke(dot)kuroda(dot)3862(at)gmail(dot)com> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> | 
| Cc: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: simplifying foreign key/RI checks | 
| Date: | 2021-01-27 07:58:44 | 
| Message-ID: | CANDwggLrk92GQHd0n5cd2M7PS==WK55tYtFNpT=KQaqbe7upgg@mail.gmail.com | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
Hi Amit-san,
Thanks for the answer!
> If you only tested insert/update on the referencing table, I would've
> expected to see nothing in the result of that query, because the patch
> eliminates all use of SPI in that case.  I suspect the CachedPlan*
> memory contexts you are seeing belong to some early activity in the
> session.  So if you try the insert/update in a freshly started
> session, you would see 0 rows in the result of that query.
That's right.
CREATE PARTITION TABLE included in the test script(rep.sql) was using SPI.
In a new session, I confirmed that CachedPlan is not generated when only
execute INSERT.
# only execute INSERT
postgres=# INSERT INTO ps SELECT generate_series(1,4999);
INSERT 0 4999
postgres=#
postgres=# INSERT INTO pr SELECT i, i from generate_series(1,4999)i;
INSERT 0 4999
postgres=# SELECT name, sum(used_bytes) as bytes,
pg_size_pretty(sum(used_bytes)) FROM pg_backend_memory_contexts
WHERE name LIKE 'Cached%' GROUP BY name;
 name | bytes | pg_size_pretty
------+-------+----------------
(0 rows) ★ No CachedPlan
> Hmm, the patch tries to solve a general problem that SPI plans are not
> being shared among partitions whereas they should be.   So I don't
> think that it's necessarily specific to DELETE.  Until we have a
> solution like the patch on this thread for DELETE, it seems fine to
> consider the other patch as a stopgap solution.
I see.
So this is a solution to the problem of using SPI plans in partitions,
not just DELETE.
I agree with you, I think this is a solution to the current problem.
Best Regards,
-- 
Keisuke Kuroda
NTT Software Innovation Center
keisuke(dot)kuroda(dot)3862(at)gmail(dot)com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2021-01-27 07:59:23 | Re: Is Recovery actually paused? | 
| Previous Message | Tang, Haiying | 2021-01-27 07:55:33 | RE: Parallel Inserts in CREATE TABLE AS |