Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 351D6632D0B
	for <pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Wed,  4 Feb 2009 17:23:20 -0400 (AST)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 08000-03
	for <pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Wed,  4 Feb 2009 17:23:14 -0400 (AST)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com (wf-out-1314.google.com
 [209.85.200.172])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBE91632CD5
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>;
	Wed,  4 Feb 2009 17:23:13 -0400 (AST)
Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 23so103177wfg.28
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 04 Feb 2009 13:23:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.143.167.15 with SMTP id u15mr3111147wfo.147.1233782591671;
	Wed, 04 Feb 2009 13:23:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?10.10.30.141? (204.11.227.33.static.etheric.net
	[204.11.227.33])
	by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 22sm184244wfi.1.2009.02.04.13.23.10
	(version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 04 Feb 2009 13:23:11 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] GIN improvements
From: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru>,
	Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>,
	Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
In-Reply-To: <603c8f070902041140h35c2aeo8c4ed79cd16400f8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <483FD205.4090904@sigaev.ru> <1232348905.7281.114.camel@jdavis>
	<4974B002.3040202@sigaev.ru> <1232474489.23316.8.camel@jdavis>
	<49770FD4.5030600@sigaev.ru> <1232561271.23793.46.camel@jdavis>
	<497864DC.5080800@sigaev.ru> <4979BAF8.1000501@sigaev.ru>
	<16080.1233625091@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<1233772747.3805.2.camel@dell.linuxdev.us.dell.com>
	<603c8f070902041140h35c2aeo8c4ed79cd16400f8@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 13:23:09 -0800
Message-Id: <1233782589.3805.12.camel@dell.linuxdev.us.dell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.125 tagged_above=0 required=5
	tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=2.125
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Archive-Number: 200902/204
X-Sequence-Number: 133494

On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 14:40 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> Well, there's nothing to force that plan to be invalidated when the
> state of the pending list changes, is there?
> 

Would it be unreasonable to invalidate cached plans during the pending
list cleanup?

Anyway, it just strikes me as strange to expect a plan to be a good plan
for very long. Can you think of an example where we applied this rule
before?

Regards,
	Jeff Davis