On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> writes: > BTW, while the fix does address the cleanup performance issue, it's > still the case that anonymous code blocks burn up lots of resident > memory (my 315k example I tested with ate around 8gb IIRC) when run > like this. My question is, if the pl/pgsql code block is anonymous > and not in some kind of a loop, why bother caching the plan at all?
Nobody got around to it. Also, as you note, it's not as simple as "don't cache if in a DO block". You'd need to track whether you were inside any sort of looping construct. Depending on how difficult that turned out to be, it might add overhead to regular functions that we don't want.
Agreed. And from the structures themselves it is not really easy to detect
if inside of a loop, the toplevel, while, for and if all use the same statement
block and call exec_stmts(), which in turn calls exec_stmt() for each
element in that list. It is not impossible to add a flag, set at PL compile
time, to that element and check it every time, the statement is executed.
But such a change definitely needs more testing and probably won't
qualify for backpatching.
In the meantime, would it be appropriate to backpatch the double linking
of memory context children at this time? I believe it has had plenty of
testing in the 9.6 cycle to be sure it didn't break anything.
