At Mon, 5 Dec 2022 17:10:50 -0800, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote in > I'm most concerned about the overhead when the timeouts are *not* > enabled. And this adds a branch to start_xact_command() and a function > call for get_timeout_active(TRANSACTION_TIMEOUT) in that case. On its > own, that's not a whole lot, but it does add up. There's 10+ function > calls for timeout and ps_display purposes for every single statement.
That path seems like existing just for robustness. I inserted "Assert(0)" just before the disable_timeout(), but make check-world didn't fail [1]. Couldn't we get rid of that path, adding an assertion instead? I'm not sure about other timeouts yet, though. About disabling side, we cannot rely on StatementTimeout. [1] # 032_apply_delay.pl fails for me so I don't know any of the later # tests fails. > But it's definitely also worth optimizing the timeout enabled paths. And > you're right, it looks like there's a fair bit of optimization > potential. Thanks. I'll work on that. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
