public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Amit Langote <[email protected]>
To: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <[email protected]>
Cc: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
Cc: Jacob Champion <[email protected]>
Cc: David Rowley <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: generic plans and "initial" pruning
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2023 16:19:08 +0900
Message-ID: <CA+HiwqEnEYzaOsEbCEmSjCm7sf3yk4BsetgAOuTyZDRnEDEcqA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<CA+HiwqFhQ8tLMLQAWYRWiBQUrWSLM8qhVzJ4B5jWr=orUXfSyA@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<CA+HiwqGFm_5aUqPnt=WCarkJ2ZU6F8kD8pFeGurHP+NZWS8KQw@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>

On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 12:58 PM Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
> Amit Langote <[email protected]> writes:
> > On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 12:31 PM Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> It might be possible to incorporate this pointer into PlannedStmt
> >> instead of passing it separately.
>
> > Yeah, that would be less churn.  Though, I wonder if you still hold
> > that PlannedStmt should not be scribbled upon outside the planner as
> > you said upthread [1]?
>
> Well, the whole point of that rule is that the executor can't modify
> a plancache entry.  If the plancache itself sets a field in such an
> entry, that doesn't seem problematic from here.
>
> But there's other possibilities if that bothers you; QueryDesc
> could hold the field, for example.  Also, I bet we'd want to copy
> it into EState for the main initialization recursion.

QueryDesc sounds good to me, and yes, also a copy in EState in any case.

So I started looking at the call sites of CreateQueryDesc() and
stopped to look at ExecParallelGetQueryDesc().  AFAICS, we wouldn't
need to pass the CachedPlan to a parallel worker's rerun of
InitPlan(), because 1) it doesn't make sense to call the plancache in
a parallel worker, 2) the leader should already have taken all the
locks in necessary for executing a given plan subnode that it intends
to pass to a worker in ExecInitGather().  Does that make sense?

-- 
Thanks, Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

view thread (22+ 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], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: generic plans and "initial" pruning
  In-Reply-To: <CA+HiwqEnEYzaOsEbCEmSjCm7sf3yk4BsetgAOuTyZDRnEDEcqA@mail.gmail.com>

* 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