Re: [PATCH] plpython function causes server panic

On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 5:28 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> After mulling it over for awhile, I still think the extra checking
> is appropriate, especially since this patch is enlarging the set of
> things that can happen in parallel mode. How do you want to proceed?

I sort of assumed you were going to commit the patch as you had it.
I'm not a huge fan of that, but I don't think that's it's catastrophe,
either. It pains me a bit to add CPU cycles that I consider
unnecessary to a very frequently taken code path, but as you say, it's
not a lot of CPU cycles, so maybe nobody will ever notice. I actually
really wish we could find some way of making subtransactions
significantly lighter-wait, because I think the cost of spinning up
and tearing down a trivial subtransaction is a real performance
problem, but fixing that is probably a pretty hard problem whether
this patch gets committed or not.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com