Re: [PATCH] postgres_fdw extension support

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Andres Freund
Тема Re: [PATCH] postgres_fdw extension support
Дата
Msg-id 20150722191512.GB27786@alap3.anarazel.de
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [PATCH] postgres_fdw extension support  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: [PATCH] postgres_fdw extension support  (Paul Ramsey <pramsey@cleverelephant.ca>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On 2015-07-22 14:55:15 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Just to be clear here: the case we are concerned about is, given that
> we have determined that function X is or is not a member of one of the
> extensions marked "shippable" for a given connection, is it likely that
> that status will change (while the function continues to exist with
> the same OID) during the lifespan of the connection?  If it did change,
> how critical would it be for us to honor the new shippability criterion
> on that connection?  My answer to both is "not very".  So I'm not excited
> about expending lots of code or cycles to check for such changes.

It doesn't seem that unlikely that somebody does an ALTER SERVER OPTIONS
SET .. to add an extension to be shippable while connections are already
using the fdw. It'll be confusing if some clients are fast and some
others are really slow.

I think we should at least add invalidations for changing server
options. I think adding support for extension upgrades wouldn't hurt
either. Not particularly excited to ALTER EXTENSION ADD, but we could
add it easy enough.

> If we were trying to cache things across more than a connection lifespan,
> the answer might be different.

I think connection poolers defeat that logic more widely tha nwe
sometimes assume.

- Andres



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [PATCH] postgres_fdw extension support
Следующее
От: Peter Geoghegan
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Eliminating CREATE INDEX comparator TID tie-breaker overhead