Robert Haas wrote: > In a close race, I don't think we should get bogged down in > micro-optimization here, both because micro-optimizations may not gain > much and because what works well on one platform may not do much at > all on another. The more general issue here is what to do about our > high backend startup costs. Beyond trying to recycle backends for new > connections, as I've previous proposed and with all the problems it > entails, the only thing that looks promising here is to try to somehow > cut down on the cost of populating the catcache and relcache, not that > I have a very clear idea how to do that. This has to be a soluble > problem because other people have solved it. To some degree we're a > victim of our own flexible and extensible architecture here, but I > find it pretty unsatisfying to just say, OK, well, we're slow.
Combining your last two sentences, I am not sure anyone with the flexibility we have has solved the "cache populating" problem. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
