Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jHFmw-0006eo-GL for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 23:50:22 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1jHFmu-0007zE-JY for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 23:50:20 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1jHFmu-0007wk-AQ for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 23:50:20 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jHFmn-0000UE-Lo for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 23:50:19 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 02PNo8jk019792; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 19:50:08 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Andres Freund cc: Pavel Stehule , Amit Langote , PostgreSQL Hackers Subject: Re: plan cache overhead on plpgsql expression In-reply-to: <20200325234143.2fqasyfbwltoegpy@alap3.anarazel.de> References: <1478.1584815045@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20200325211825.gf2ta424kwkfghbr@alap3.anarazel.de> <15634.1585173110@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20200325224903.pwsx4pccyktq7tx6@alap3.anarazel.de> <18566.1585178128@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20200325234143.2fqasyfbwltoegpy@alap3.anarazel.de> Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund message dated "Wed, 25 Mar 2020 16:41:43 -0700" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <19790.1585180208.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 19:50:08 -0400 Message-ID: <19791.1585180208@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Andres Freund writes: > I'm still confused by the comment I was reacting to - the code > explicitly is about creating the *shared* resowner: Right, this is because of the choice I mentioned earlier about creating this resowner the same way as the one for the inline case. I guess the comments could go into more detail. Or we could make the parentage different for the two cases, but I don't like that much. regards, tom lane