Re: [HACKERS] proposal: session server side variables - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Pavel Stehule
Subject Re: [HACKERS] proposal: session server side variables
Date
Msg-id CAFj8pRABsJcjkuNo136sJwxrWNcjvXnH_2X3CHRizv7_DykkHw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] proposal: session server side variables  (Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] proposal: session server side variables  (Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>)
List pgsql-hackers


2017-01-04 18:49 GMT+01:00 Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>:

ok understand

Good. So we seem to agree that GUCS are transactional?

The logic depends on transactions and on nesting level (nesting doesn't
depends on transactions only)

Yep, it probably also happens with LOCAL which hides the previous value and restores the initial one when exiting.

void AtEOXact_GUC(bool isCommit, int nestLevel)

Probably we should to use CallXactCallbacks instead - then is not a
performance impact when there are not transactional variables.

I do not understand your point.

It is on critical path, so every check increase computer time for transaction end.

Regards

Pavel
 

It is a very good thing that GUCs are transactional, and this should not be changed, it is a useful feature! Much more useful than non transactional.

Personally, I never used - although I using often nesting

regards

Pavel
 

Moreover I think that transactional is expensive when writing things to disk, but in memory the overhead is reduced, and if you need it then you need it.

--
Fabien.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Fabien COELHO
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] proposal: session server side variables
Next
From: Pavan Deolasee
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] rewrite HeapSatisfiesHOTAndKey