Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> Hmm, I wonder if that's actually where the cycles are going. There's
> an awful lot of separate function calls inside CommitSubTransaction(),
> and in the common case, each one of them has to individually decide
> that it doesn't need to do anything. Sure, they're all fast, but if
> you have enough of them, it's still going to add up, at least a bit.
> In that sense, the resource owner mechanism seems like it should, or
> at least could, be better.
Yeah, I was thinking about that too. The normal case is that you
don't hold any releasable resources except locks when arriving at
CommitSubTransaction --- if you do, it's a bug and we're going to
print leak warnings. Seems like maybe it'd be worth trying to
have a fast path for that case. (Also, given that we probably
do need to release locks right away, this point invalidates my
earlier idea of postponing the work.)
> But I haven't done any benchmarking of this area in a long time.
Ditto.
regards, tom lane
