On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 10:44:25AM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > On 6 Sep 2023, at 21:13, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 05:14:08PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> >> I think we should reword this to just generically claim that holding
> >> the Relation reference open for the w
> On 6 Sep 2023, at 21:13, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 05:14:08PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think we should reword this to just generically claim that holding
>> the Relation reference open for the whole transaction reduces overhead.
>
> How is this attached patch?
Reads go
On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 05:14:08PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Nathan Bossart writes:
> > On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 06:48:51PM +0100, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
> >> * All accesses to pg_largeobject and its index make use of a single
> >> Relation
> >> - * reference, so that we only need to ope
On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 05:14:08PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think we should reword this to just generically claim that holding
> the Relation reference open for the whole transaction reduces overhead.
WFM
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
Nathan Bossart writes:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 06:48:51PM +0100, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
>> * All accesses to pg_largeobject and its index make use of a single
>> Relation
>> - * reference, so that we only need to open pg_relation once per transaction.
>> + * reference, so that we onl
Okay, now looking at the patch...
On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 06:48:51PM +0100, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
> * All accesses to pg_largeobject and its index make use of a single Relation
> - * reference, so that we only need to open pg_relation once per transaction.
> + * reference, so that we o
On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 11:53:06AM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 06:48:51PM +0100, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
>> Triggered by a discussion on IRC, I noticed that there's a stray
>> reference to pg_relation in a comment that was added long after it was
>> renamed to pg_
On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 06:48:51PM +0100, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
> Triggered by a discussion on IRC, I noticed that there's a stray
> reference to pg_relation in a comment that was added long after it was
> renamed to pg_class. Here's a patch to bring that up to speed.
> pg_relation was
