Re: Overhead for stats_command_string et al, take 2

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Overhead for stats_command_string et al, take 2
Date: 2006-06-21 17:18:26
Message-ID: 11713.1150910306@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
>> Can anyone else reproduce this slowdown? It might be only an artifact
>> of these particular builds, but it's a bit too consistent in my x86 data
>> to just ignore.

> You don't perchance have ON_ERROR_ROLLBACK on do you? I did when I tried
> testing it and ltrace shows plenty of traffic caused by that.

No --- I strace'd the backend and nothing is going back and forth except
"SELECT 1;" and the response to that. I would think the extra BEGINs
would lead to far more overhead than I'm seeing anyway.

> why is anything calling htonl at all?

Protocol message-length words and suchlike, no doubt.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2006-06-21 17:31:35 Re: UTF8 server-side on Win32?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-06-21 17:09:38 Re: UTF8 server-side on Win32?