| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(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 21:23:09 |
| Message-ID: | 1233782589.3805.12.camel@dell.linuxdev.us.dell.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
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?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stanislav Lacko | 2009-02-04 21:42:46 | Is a plan for lmza commpression in pg_dump |
| Previous Message | Kenneth Marshall | 2009-02-04 19:57:57 | Re: <note> on hash indexes |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-02-04 21:49:37 | Re: [PATCHES] GIN improvements |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-02-04 19:40:03 | Re: [PATCHES] GIN improvements |