Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> Isn't a large portion of benefits in this patch going to be mooted by
> the locking improvements discussed in the other threads? I.e. there's
> hopefully not going to be a ton of cases with low overhead where we
> acquire a lot of locks and release them very soon after. Sure, for DDL
> etc we will, but I can't see this mattering from a performance POV?
Mmm ... AIUI, the patches currently proposed can only help for what
David called "point lookup" queries. There are still going to be
queries that scan a large proportion of a partition tree, so if you've
got tons of partitions, you'll be concerned about this sort of thing.
> I'm not against doing something like Tom proposes, but heuristics with
> magic constants like this tend to age purely / are hard to tune well
> across systems.
I didn't say it had to be a constant ...
regards, tom lane