Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> On 2020-Nov-24, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> As it stands, 0001 reduces the ParameterStatus message traffic to
>>> at most one per GUC per query, but it doesn't attempt to eliminate
>>> duplicate ParameterStatus messages altogether. We could do that
>>> as a pretty simple adjustment if we're willing to expend the storage
>>> to remember the last value sent to the client. It might be worth
>>> doing, since for example the function-SET-clause case would typically
>>> lead to no net change in the GUC's value by the end of the query.
>> On reflection this seems worth doing, since excess client traffic
>> is far from free.
> Agreed. If this is just a few hundred bytes of server-side local memory
> per backend, it seems definitely worth it.
Yeah, given the current set of GUC_REPORT variables, it's hard to see
the storage for their last-reported values amounting to much. The need
for an extra pointer field in each GUC variable record might eat more
space than the actually-live values :-(
regards, tom lane
