Re: Why overhead of SPI is so large?

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Why overhead of SPI is so large?
Date: 2019-11-21 18:47:32
Message-ID: CAFj8pRDudG=L1GcnmnHbTHG=L_Hxm7NnG_hty0irjMMD_67nKg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

čt 21. 11. 2019 v 10:31 odesílatel Konstantin Knizhnik <
k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> napsal:

>
> > I've set the CF entry to "Waiting on Author" pending a new patch
> > that does it like that.
>
> With contain_mutable_functions the patch becomes trivial.
>

Stable functions doesn't need own snapshot too, so it is not fully correct,
but it is on safe side.

Pavel

> --
> Konstantin Knizhnik
> Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
> The Russian Postgres Company
>
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2019-11-21 18:58:13 obsolete example
Previous Message Nikolay Shaplov 2019-11-21 18:39:53 Re: [PATCH] Do not use StdRdOptions in Access Methods