Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cyi2g-0001j9-0c for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 16:56:22 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cyi2f-00010c-Js for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 16:56:21 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cyi2e-00010C-Ry for pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 16:56:20 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cyi2c-0000t5-OU for pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 16:56:20 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v3DGuErj027410; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 12:56:14 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Andres Freund cc: Andreas Karlsson , pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org Subject: Re: Cutting initdb's runtime (Perl question embedded) In-reply-to: <20170413164132.3nhobp4z4wnnvhca@alap3.anarazel.de> References: <30896.1492006367@sss.pgh.pa.us> <972d541d-7285-53ff-ea71-dcbfd886570a@proxel.se> <6312.1492100010@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20170413164132.3nhobp4z4wnnvhca@alap3.anarazel.de> Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund message dated "Thu, 13 Apr 2017 09:41:32 -0700" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <27408.1492102574.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 12:56:14 -0400 Message-ID: <27409.1492102574@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org Andres Freund writes: > Cool. I wonder if we also should remove AtEOXact_CatCache()'s > cross-checks - the resowner replacement has been in place for a while, > and seems robust enough. They're now the biggest user of time. Hm, biggest user of time in what workload? I've not noticed that function particularly. I agree that it doesn't seem like we need to spend a lot of time cross-checking there, though. Maybe keep the code but #ifdef it under some nondefault debugging symbol. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers