Re: Function search_path

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Heinemann, Manfred (IMS)" <HeinemannM(at)imsweb(dot)com>
Cc: Fabio Pardi <f(dot)pardi(at)portavita(dot)eu>, "pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Function search_path
Date: 2018-03-16 21:45:30
Message-ID: 2328.1521236730@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin

"Heinemann, Manfred (IMS)" <HeinemannM(at)imsweb(dot)com> writes:
> I have played around with the postgres memory settings and setting search_path on a function causes a lot more memory to be used than if no search_path was set.

That's a pretty broad claim with a pretty small amount of evidence
offered.

I can certainly believe that attaching a SET clause (whether for
search_path or any other GUC variable) would have an efficiency impact;
one non-obvious example is that it prevents inlining if the function is
a SQL function. But I don't immediately see a reason for major memory
consumption from that. I suspect what you're seeing is specific to a
particular use-case. If you were to provide a concrete example, we
could look into what's happening.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message karan sharma 2018-03-16 23:34:26 CVE-2018-1058
Previous Message Heinemann, Manfred (IMS) 2018-03-16 21:09:52 RE: Function search_path