| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Unify drop-by-OID functions |
| Date: | 2020-05-05 21:10:57 |
| Message-ID: | 20200505211057.GA26016@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-May-05, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> And in that specific case, leaving resources blocked, which perhaps, in my
> humble opinion, could be released quickly.
I very much doubt that you can measure any difference at all between
these two codings of the function.
I agree with the principle you mention, of not holding resources for
long if they can be released earlier; but in this case the table_close
call occurs across a ReleaseSysCache() call, which is hardly of
significance. It's not like you have to wait for some other
transaction, or wait for I/O, or anything like that that would make it
measurable.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-05-05 21:31:26 | Re: PG 13 release notes, first draft |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2020-05-05 20:29:37 | Re: PG 13 release notes, first draft |