| From: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Providing catalog view to pg_hba.conf file - Patch submission |
| Date: | 2015-03-02 13:42:06 |
| Message-ID: | CAM-w4HOKJcafjUafhVJKYVLdmhuE=tSMz9adpvaB=qV936jsmg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
So earlier someone commented that using lists list_nth() seemed odd and a
tuplestore might be better. In fact using lists this way is O(n^2). I've
done some quick tests and it doesn't start being a problem until about
10,000 lines which obviously isn't a terribly common way to use
pg_hba_settings. However we have in the past had people doing multi-tenant
clusters with hundreds or thousands of databases in a cluster complaining
about scalability of certain operations. It would be a shame to introduce a
new one.
It does seem annoying to use a tuplestore as IIRC the function scan node
also materializes the results in recent years. But at least it would scale
linearly.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thom Brown | 2015-03-02 13:50:42 | Re: Join push-down support for foreign tables |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2015-03-02 13:38:28 | Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments |