| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: some last patches breaks plan cache |
| Date: | 2018-04-05 19:01:14 |
| Message-ID: | cba0a9fa-6da7-6a55-c0d4-d7aee1614f7b@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 4/4/18 14:03, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> If there's really no other way, you could use a PG_TRY block to
>> ensure that the pointer gets reset on the way out. But I question
>> why we've got a design that requires that in the first place. It's
>> likely to have more problems than this.
>
> I agree it needs a solution that does not require us to track and
> manually reset pointers on random places. No argument here.
I've committed a fix with PG_TRY.
A more complete solution would be to able to keep the plan independent
of a resowner. That would require a bit more deep surgery in SPI, it
seems. I'll take a look if it's doable.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tels | 2018-04-05 19:10:13 | Re: Parallel Aggregates for string_agg and array_agg |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-04-05 18:39:27 | Re: Excessive PostmasterIsAlive calls slow down WAL redo |