Re: Overhead for stats_command_string et al, take 2 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Overhead for stats_command_string et al, take 2
Date
Msg-id 11713.1150910306@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Overhead for stats_command_string et al, take 2  (Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>)
List pgsql-hackers
Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu> writes:
>> Can anyone else reproduce this slowdown?  It might be only an artifact
>> of these particular builds, but it's a bit too consistent in my x86 data
>> to just ignore.

> You don't perchance have ON_ERROR_ROLLBACK on do you? I did when I tried
> testing it and ltrace shows plenty of traffic caused by that.

No --- I strace'd the backend and nothing is going back and forth except
"SELECT 1;" and the response to that.  I would think the extra BEGINs
would lead to far more overhead than I'm seeing anyway.

> why is anything calling htonl at all?

Protocol message-length words and suchlike, no doubt.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: UTF8 server-side on Win32?
Next
From: "Mark Woodward"
Date:
Subject: vacuum, performance, and MVCC