Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndquadrant.fr> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>> I think it would be difficult and probably dangerous to have PG_TRY
>> for only some utility commands, so not much to be done about that.
>> The main thing is to not invoke event trigger code for BEGIN/ABORT/SET.
> What about splitting the big switch statement into two of them? The
> first one for transaction control statements, and then the other bigger
> one.
Sounds like considerable uglification to fix a performance issue that's
entirely hypothetical... let's see some numbers that prove it's worth
worrying about before we do that.
regards, tom lane
