From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Heinemann, Manfred (IMS) <HeinemannM@imsweb.com>
Cc: Fabio Pardi <f.pardi@portavita.eu>
Cc: pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org <pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Function search_path
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 17:45:30 -0400
Message-ID: <2328.1521236730@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b0078bdae3e04de1ba3ddaa3527c8922@THALASSA.omni.imsweb.com>
References: <db194d98f61d4aa398c1399a24326e7c@THALASSA.omni.imsweb.com>
<5f698c34-d01d-3196-1db4-75ba8f6a37d3@portavita.eu>
<b0078bdae3e04de1ba3ddaa3527c8922@THALASSA.omni.imsweb.com>
"Heinemann, Manfred (IMS)" <HeinemannM@imsweb.com> writes:
> I have played around with the postgres memory settings and setting search_path on a function causes a lot more memory to be used than if no search_path was set.
That's a pretty broad claim with a pretty small amount of evidence
offered.
I can certainly believe that attaching a SET clause (whether for
search_path or any other GUC variable) would have an efficiency impact;
one non-obvious example is that it prevents inlining if the function is
a SQL function. But I don't immediately see a reason for major memory
consumption from that. I suspect what you're seeing is specific to a
particular use-case. If you were to provide a concrete example, we
could look into what's happening.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, HeinemannM@imsweb.com, f.pardi@portavita.eu, pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Function search_path
In-Reply-To: <2328.1521236730@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox