public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Chao Li <[email protected]>
To: Amit Langote <[email protected]>
Cc: Kirill Reshke <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: GetCachedPlan() refactor: move execution lock acquisition out
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2026 10:34:58 +0800
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+HiwqEXyLiCdi7MQgmU8Y+aPVcOf8JpWfVA4szCmJtZAqj7Fg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+HiwqE1ntHy2h9zJ9v3MwAkoGAveSERcHWkDTTZnP0kxWqbKQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CALdSSPh=8qLa1kPsBUnPXMmigaCABiNTwmwg1wH+TmQWH=f_Ww@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+HiwqH7TcHb=P7qHF-9jnXD3APLUWbD4QS_OJ3d-5qaC+Puzg@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+HiwqEXyLiCdi7MQgmU8Y+aPVcOf8JpWfVA4szCmJtZAqj7Fg@mail.gmail.com>
> On Apr 15, 2026, at 21:46, Amit Langote <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2026 at 11:14 AM Amit Langote <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2026 at 1:08 AM Kirill Reshke <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> +static bool
>>>> +LockCachedPlan(CachedPlan *cplan)
>>>> +{
>>>> + AcquireExecutorLocks(cplan->stmt_list, true);
>>>> + if (!cplan->is_valid)
>>>> + {
>>>> + AcquireExecutorLocks(cplan->stmt_list, false);
>>>> + return false;
>>>> + }
>>>> + return true;
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> simply `return cplan->is_valid ` would be more Postgres-y here, isnt it?
>>
>> Agreed, will fix too.
>
> Thinking more about this bit, checking only cplan->is_valid after
> locking is not really equivalent to what CheckCachedPlan() was doing
> before.
>
> CheckCachedPlan() can also reset plan->is_valid based on other state
> (role, xmin), whereas in v1 the new check relied only on lock inval
> callbacks to have set is_valid to false. That means the new check is
> not enough. It may happen to be okay for the current callers in this
> patch, but it is not something I think is safe to rely on once there
> are future callers that do arbitrary work, such as ExecutorPrep(),
> even if carefully coded, between the original GetCachedPlan() /
> CheckCachedPlan() step and the later recheck after locking.
>
> Separately, I also realized that v1 was introducing redundant lock
> acquisition for freshly built plans, which is not really a no behavior
> change refactoring either.
>
> So in v2 I ended up reworking two parts more substantially:
>
> * The patch now factors the reused-generic-plan validity logic into
> RecheckCachedPlan().
>
> * It also adds an is_reused output argument to GetCachedPlan(), so
> callers can distinguish the reused-plan case from a freshly built plan
> and avoid the extra lock step in the latter case.
>
> --
> Thanks, Amit Langote
> <v2-0001-Move-execution-lock-acquisition-out-of-GetCachedP.patch>
V2 overall looks good, it preserves the current behavior.
I just have a question. RecheckCachedPlan is only called by LockCachedPlan and CheckCachedPlan, and both callers are static, why RecheckCachedPlan is exported?
Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/
view thread (6+ messages) latest in thread
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: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: GetCachedPlan() refactor: move execution lock acquisition out
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox