Re: [HACKERS] TopPlan, again

2007-02-19 Thread Tom Lane
"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> After looking over the code it seems that the executor needs a limited >> subset of the Query fields, namely >> ... >> which I think we should put into a new TopPlan node type. > All else sounds good, but why would we be caching a plan that used these >

Re: [HACKERS] TopPlan, again

2007-02-19 Thread Simon Riggs
On Sun, 2007-02-18 at 18:19 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > While thinking about having a centralized plan cache for managing plan > invalidation, I got annoyed again about the fact that the executor needs > access to the Query tree. This means that we'll be storing *three* > representations of any cache

Re: [HACKERS] TopPlan, again

2007-02-18 Thread Gregory Stark
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Comments, objections? Also, any thoughts about the names to use for > these new node types? As I commented last year, I'm not completely > happy with "TopPlan" because it won't actually be a subtype of Plan, > but I don't have a better idea. Also I'm uns

Re: [HACKERS] TopPlan, again

2007-02-18 Thread Tom Lane
Mark Kirkwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Gavin Sherry wrote: >> On Sun, 18 Feb 2007, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Comments, objections? Also, any thoughts about the names to use for >>> these new node types? As I commented last year, I'm not completely >>> happy with "TopPlan" because it won't actually

Re: [HACKERS] TopPlan, again

2007-02-18 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Gavin Sherry wrote: On Sun, 18 Feb 2007, Tom Lane wrote: Comments, objections? Also, any thoughts about the names to use for these new node types? As I commented last year, I'm not completely happy with "TopPlan" because it won't actually be a subtype of Plan, but I don't have a better idea

Re: [HACKERS] TopPlan, again

2007-02-18 Thread Gavin Sherry
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007, Tom Lane wrote: > We've repeatedly discussed getting rid of execution-time access to the > Query structure --- here's one old message about it: > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/1999-02/msg00388.php > and here's a recent one: > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql

[HACKERS] TopPlan, again

2007-02-18 Thread Tom Lane
While thinking about having a centralized plan cache for managing plan invalidation, I got annoyed again about the fact that the executor needs access to the Query tree. This means that we'll be storing *three* representations of any cached query: raw parsetree for possible regeneration, plus pars