On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 1:55 AM Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com> wrote: > > I disagree with the conclusion though. It seems to me that if you > > really have this workload that consists in these few queries and want > > to get better performance, you'll anyway use a connection pooler > > and/or use prepared statements, which will make this overhead > > disappear entirely, and will also yield an even bigger performance > > improvement. A quick test using pgbench -M prepared, with > > track_planning enabled, with still way too many connections already > > shows a 25% improvement over the -M simple without track_planning. > > I understand your point. But IMO the default setting basically should > be safer value, i.e., off at least until the problem disappears.
+1 -- this regression seems unacceptable to me. -- Peter Geoghegan
