This patch essentially is cleaning up technical debt left behind
by the original implementation of plpgsql procedures, particularly
commit d92bc83c4. That patch (or more precisely, follow-on patches
fixing its worst bugs) forced us to re-plan CALL and DO statements
each time through, if we're in a non-atomic context. That wasn't
for any fundamental reason, but just because use of a saved plan
requires having a ResourceOwner to hold a reference count for the
plan, and we had no suitable resowner at hand, nor would the
available APIs support using one if we did. While it's not that
expensive to create a "plan" for CALL/DO, the cycles do add up
in repeated executions.
This patch therefore makes the following API changes:
* GetCachedPlan/ReleaseCachedPlan are modified to let the caller
specify which resowner to use to pin the plan, rather than forcing
use of CurrentResourceOwner.
* spi.c gains a "SPI_execute_plan_extended" entry point that lets
callers say which resowner to use to pin the plan. This borrows the
idea of an options struct from the recently added SPI_prepare_extended,
hopefully allowing future options to be added without more API breaks.
This supersedes SPI_execute_plan_with_paramlist (which I've marked
deprecated) as well as SPI_execute_plan_with_receiver (which is new
in v14, so I just took it out altogether).
* I also took the opportunity to remove the crude hack of letting
plpgsql reach into SPI private data structures to mark SPI plans as
"no_snapshot". It's better to treat that as an option of
SPI_prepare_extended.
Now, when running a non-atomic procedure or DO block that contains
any CALL or DO commands, plpgsql creates a ResourceOwner that
will be used to pin the plans of the CALL/DO commands. (In an
atomic context, we just use CurrentResourceOwner, as before.)
Having done this, we can just save CALL/DO plans normally,
whether or not they are used across transaction boundaries.
This seems to be good for something like 2X speedup of a CALL
of a trivial procedure with a few simple argument expressions.
By restricting the creation of an extra ResourceOwner like this,
there's essentially zero penalty in cases that can't benefit.
Pavel Stehule, with some further hacking by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAFj8pRCLPdDAETvR7Po7gC5y_ibkn_-bOzbeJb39WHms01194Q@mail.gmail.com
ee895a655c