| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Patches (PostgreSQL)" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] loading libraries on Postmaster startup |
| Date: | 2003-02-22 20:40:44 |
| Message-ID: | 3E57E04C.2030300@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
>
>>In my testing with PL/R, it reduces the first call to a PL/R function
>>(after connecting) from almost 2 seconds, down to about 8 ms.
>
> Hm, pretty significant. Can you measure any per-fork cost (ie, the loss
> incurred by children that don't use PL/R)? Is there any measurable
> benefit for our other PLs (plperl etc)?
>
Haven't done so yet, but will do and report back later today.
Joe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2003-02-23 01:38:39 | Re: ILIKE |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-02-22 19:22:03 | Re: [HACKERS] loading libraries on Postmaster startup |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Neil Conway | 2003-02-23 01:12:06 | minor cleanup of regress.c |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-02-22 19:22:03 | Re: [HACKERS] loading libraries on Postmaster startup |