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
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 |