"Aaron Werman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I imagine a design where a shared plan cache would consist of the plans, > indexed by a statement hash and again by dependant objects. A statement to > be planned would be hashed and matched to the cache. DDL would need to > synchronously destroy all dependant plans. If each plan maintains a validity ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > flag, changing the cache wouldn't have to block so I don't see where there ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > would be contention.
You have contention to access a shared data structure *at all* -- for instance readers must lock out writers. Or didn't you notice the self- contradictions in what you just said? Our current scalability problems dictate reducing such contention, not adding whole new sources of it. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])