"Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do you agree that using a hashtable for it in general is a good idea
> assuming this sideeffect is removed, though?
I have no problem with the hashtable, only with preloading it with
everything. What I'd like to see is that the table inherited at fo
>I have just noticed that this patch:
>
> * Implements a hash-table cache of loaded tables, so we
>don't have
...
>balloons the working store of every backend process by something over 5
>megabytes:
>
>Timezones: 5678768 total in 19 blocks; 3904 free (0 chunks);
>5674864 used
>
>The
