From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: slow queries over information schema.tables |
Date: | 2018-12-06 17:03:33 |
Message-ID: | 21728.1544115813@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 11:32 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> It's fairly hard to imagine practical cases where we'd not call
>> AcceptInvalidationMessages at least once per query, so I'm not
>> very sure what you're on about.
> Unless I'm confused, it happens any time you run a query that only
> touches tables using lockmodes previously acquired by the current
> transaction. Like:
> BEGIN;
> some query;
> the same query again;
In my testing, that still hits AIM() during parserOpenTable().
[ further experimentation... ] It looks like if you prepare
a query and then just execute it repeatedly in one transaction,
you'd not reach AIM (as long as you were getting generic plans).
Possibly that's a gap worth closing.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2018-12-06 17:05:33 | Re: proposal: plpgsql pragma statement |
Previous Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2018-12-06 17:01:52 | Re: proposal: plpgsql pragma statement |