Re: PG 15 (and to a smaller degree 14) regression due to ExprEvalStep size - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: PG 15 (and to a smaller degree 14) regression due to ExprEvalStep size
Date
Msg-id 1228108.1655477610@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PG 15 (and to a smaller degree 14) regression due to ExprEvalStep size  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
I wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
>> Or we could add a timeout.c API that specifies the timeout?

> Don't think that will help: it'd be morally equivalent to
> enable_timeout_at(), which also has to do GetCurrentTimestamp().

BTW, if we were willing to drop get_timeout_start_time(), it might
be possible to avoid doing GetCurrentTimestamp() in enable_timeout_at,
in the common case where the specified timestamp is beyond signal_due_at
so that no setitimer call is needed.  But getting the race conditions
right could be tricky.  On the whole this doesn't sound like something
to tackle post-beta.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Aleksander Alekseev
Date:
Subject: Re: Pluggable toaster
Next
From: Aleksander Alekseev
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Compression dictionaries for JSONB