On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 11:53 PM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 3:10 AM Amit Langote <amitlangot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Pursuing that kind of a project would perhaps have been more > > worthwhile if the locking issue had affected more than just this > > particular case, that is, the case of running prepared statements over > > partitioned tables using generic plans. Addressing this by > > rearchitecting run-time pruning (and plancache to some degree) seemed > > like it might lead to this getting fixed in a bounded timeframe. I > > admit that the concerns that Robert has raised about the patch make me > > want to reconsider that position, though maybe it's too soon to > > conclude. > > I wasn't trying to say that your approach was dead in the water. It > does create a situation that can't happen today, and such things are > scary and need careful thought. But redesigning the locking mechanism > would need careful thought, too ... maybe even more of it than sorting > this out.
Yes, agreed. -- Amit Langote EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
