| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Should work_mem be stable for a prepared statement? |
| Date: | 2025-02-27 23:48:03 |
| Message-ID: | 83fbc36b66077e6ed0ad3a1c18fff3a7d2b22d36.camel@j-davis.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2025-02-27 at 17:04 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Given that nobody's complained about this for twenty-plus years,
> I can't get excited about adding complexity to do either thing.
I had in mind some refactoring in this area, which ideally would not
add complexity. It might provide some nice benefits, but would
introduce this behavior change, which makes it slightly more than a
refactoring.
It sounds like the behavior change would be desirable or at least
neutral. I will have to try it out and see if the refactoring is a net
improvement or turns into a mess.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ryo Kanbayashi | 2025-02-28 00:24:10 | Re: [PATCH] Add regression tests of ecpg command notice (error / warning) |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2025-02-27 23:39:50 | Re: Restrict copying of invalidated replication slots |