Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I think we have to mark this as returned with feedback or rejected for >> the reasons mentioned here: >> http://postgr.es/m/ca+tgmozjn28uyjrq2k+5idhyxwbder68sctoc2p_nw7h7jb...@mail.gmail.com
> Good point. I forgot this bit. Thanks for mentioning it I am switching > the patch as returned with feedback. We had a bug report just today that seemed to me to trace to relcache bloat: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20171129100649.1473.73990%40wrigleys.postgresql.org ISTM that there's definitely work to be done here, but as I said upthread, I think we need a more holistic approach than just focusing on negative catcache entries, or even just catcache entries. The thing that makes me uncomfortable about this is that we used to have a catcache size limitation mechanism, and ripped it out because it had too much overhead (see commit 8b9bc234a). I'm not sure how we can avoid that problem within a fresh implementation. regards, tom lane
