Re: [HACKERS] Cutting initdb's runtime (Perl question embedded) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Cutting initdb's runtime (Perl question embedded)
Date
Msg-id 27409.1492102574@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Cutting initdb's runtime (Perl question embedded)  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Cutting initdb's runtime (Perl question embedded)
List pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> Cool.  I wonder if we also should remove AtEOXact_CatCache()'s
> cross-checks - the resowner replacement has been in place for a while,
> and seems robust enough.  They're now the biggest user of time.

Hm, biggest user of time in what workload?  I've not noticed that
function particularly.

I agree that it doesn't seem like we need to spend a lot of time
cross-checking there, though.  Maybe keep the code but #ifdef it
under some nondefault debugging symbol.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: Query fails when SRFs are part of FROM clause(Commit id: 69f4b9c85f)
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW