| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Dickson S(dot) Guedes" <listas(at)guedesoft(dot)net>, jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Patch to fix search_path defencies with pg_bench |
| Date: | 2009-05-08 19:11:07 |
| Message-ID: | 12470.1241809867@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, 7 May 2009, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The tables will be created and used in schema 'a', and the effective
>> search path depth will be the same.
> The case to be concerned about here is where the search_path changes
> between initialization and the pgbench run, which certainly isn't
> impossible. That can leave you with a longer effective path to search.
> Pretty unlikely to be a problem in the field though.
Yeah. Also, there is another consideration here that hasn't been
brought up AFAIR: the main point of running pgbench in-the-field
is to find out whether your installation is properly tuned. If
you've chosen a search_path setting that *did* have some unexpected
performance issues, wouldn't you want pgbench to reveal that?
It's peculiar to have pgbench forcing this one particular GUC setting
and not any others.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ricardo Bessa | 2009-05-08 20:20:02 | Show method of index |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-05-08 19:03:56 | Re: [PATCH] Automatic client certificate selection support for libpq v1 |