pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Konstantin Knizhnik <k.knizhnik@postgrespro.ru>
To: Doug Doole <ddoole@salesforce.com>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Serge Rielau <serge@rielau.com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Cached plans and statement generalization
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 22:35:21 +0300
Message-ID: <5900F679.8000100@postgrespro.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAP6UvaOHL2mzKT4nX=5XcsY8mRqV0vjzXc+4dJsYx+uMsAQ6Ow@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f0bfcdd6-dba3-e9a8-2108-146e1f880839@postgrespro.ru>
	<CBF37923-CDA5-48EF-9E9E-4A338D7988ED@rielau.com>
	<1f4c1a22-ecbe-811d-4695-ee4701b8f6c7@postgrespro.ru>
	<e85343e6-5ab5-447c-9995-5cce992fedf3@rielau.com>
	<58FFB391.5080101@postgrespro.ru>
	<C0064A85-7CE9-44E6-B14F-98E541B328FD@rielau.com>
	<58FFB5F0.2020900@postgrespro.ru>
	<CAP6UvaMjiumn5-Lre_w11j=ZAOB9auO1x=-meTKsWRfcsQ7Pcw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20170425214746.3mngxgbo7yndfgax@alap3.anarazel.de>
	<CAP6UvaNvFYprWdghZ4=MFUFLczzj1br9CX+vAQFz8wAGd14yug@mail.gmail.com>
	<20170425223448.amnhdludwondarph@alap3.anarazel.de>
	<CAP6UvaO9bS8+U-Upt-1Fkn7tgUyNW_BiCFbh9a4LgcHqh84kQw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAP6UvaOHL2mzKT4nX=5XcsY8mRqV0vjzXc+4dJsYx+uMsAQ6Ow@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>

On 04/26/2017 08:08 PM, Doug Doole wrote:
>
>     A naive option would be to invalidate anything that depends on table or view *.FOOBAR. You could probably make it a bit smarter by also requiring that schema A appear in the path.
>
>
> This has been rumbling around in my head. I wonder if you could solve this problem by registering dependencies on objects which don't yet exist. Consider:
>
> CREATE TABLE C.T1(...);
> CREATE TABLE C.T2(...);
> SET search_path='A,B,C,D';
> SELECT * FROM C.T1, T2;
>
> For T1, you'd register a hard dependency on C.T1 and no virtual dependencies since the table is explicitly qualified.
>
> For T2, you'd register a hard dependency on C.T2 since that is the table that was selected for the query. You'd also register virtual dependencies on A.T2 and B.T2 since if either of those tables (or views) are created you need to recompile the 
> statement. (Note that no virtual dependency is created on D.T2() since that table would never be selected by the compiler.)
>
> The catch is that virtual dependencies would have to be recorded and searched as strings, not OIDs since the objects don't exist. Virtual dependencies only have to be checked during CREATE processing though, so that might not be too bad.
>
> But this is getting off topic - I just wanted to capture the idea while it was rumbling around.

I think that it will be enough to handle modification of search path and invalidate prepared statements cache in this case.

-- 
Konstantin Knizhnik
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company

view thread (107+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <5900F679.8000100@postgrespro.ru>
Permalink:  ../5900F679.8000100@postgrespro.ru/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/5900F679.8000100@postgrespro.ru

 · 

reply
Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Cc: k.knizhnik@postgrespro.ru, ddoole@salesforce.com, andres@anarazel.de, serge@rielau.com
  Subject: Re: Cached plans and statement generalization
  In-Reply-To: <5900F679.8000100@postgrespro.ru>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox