Re: Should work_mem be stable for a prepared statement? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jeff Davis
Subject Re: Should work_mem be stable for a prepared statement?
Date
Msg-id 83fbc36b66077e6ed0ad3a1c18fff3a7d2b22d36.camel@j-davis.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Should work_mem be stable for a prepared statement?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, 2025-02-27 at 17:04 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Given that nobody's complained about this for twenty-plus years,
> I can't get excited about adding complexity to do either thing.

I had in mind some refactoring in this area, which ideally would not
add complexity. It might provide some nice benefits, but would
introduce this behavior change, which makes it slightly more than a
refactoring.

It sounds like the behavior change would be desirable or at least
neutral. I will have to try it out and see if the refactoring is a net
improvement or turns into a mess.

Regards,
    Jeff Davis




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Masahiko Sawada
Date:
Subject: Re: Restrict copying of invalidated replication slots
Next
From: Ryo Kanbayashi
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add regression tests of ecpg command notice (error / warning)