Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think we have to mark this as returned with feedback or rejected for
>> the reasons mentioned here:
>> http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoZjn28uYJRQ2K+5idhYxWBDER68sctoc2p_nW7h7JbhYw@mail.gmail.com
> Good point. I forgot this bit. Thanks for mentioning it I am switching
> the patch as returned with feedback.
We had a bug report just today that seemed to me to trace to relcache
bloat:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20171129100649.1473.73990%40wrigleys.postgresql.org
ISTM that there's definitely work to be done here, but as I said upthread,
I think we need a more holistic approach than just focusing on negative
catcache entries, or even just catcache entries.
The thing that makes me uncomfortable about this is that we used to have a
catcache size limitation mechanism, and ripped it out because it had too
much overhead (see commit 8b9bc234a). I'm not sure how we can avoid that
problem within a fresh implementation.
regards, tom lane
