Re: [HACKERS] proposal: session server side variables

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Pavel Stehule
Тема Re: [HACKERS] proposal: session server side variables
Дата
Msg-id CAFj8pRABsJcjkuNo136sJwxrWNcjvXnH_2X3CHRizv7_DykkHw@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] proposal: session server side variables  (Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] proposal: session server side variables  (Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>)
Список pgsql-hackers


2017-01-04 18:49 GMT+01:00 Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>:

ok understand

Good. So we seem to agree that GUCS are transactional?

The logic depends on transactions and on nesting level (nesting doesn't
depends on transactions only)

Yep, it probably also happens with LOCAL which hides the previous value and restores the initial one when exiting.

void AtEOXact_GUC(bool isCommit, int nestLevel)

Probably we should to use CallXactCallbacks instead - then is not a
performance impact when there are not transactional variables.

I do not understand your point.

It is on critical path, so every check increase computer time for transaction end.

Regards

Pavel
 

It is a very good thing that GUCs are transactional, and this should not be changed, it is a useful feature! Much more useful than non transactional.

Personally, I never used - although I using often nesting

regards

Pavel
 

Moreover I think that transactional is expensive when writing things to disk, but in memory the overhead is reduced, and if you need it then you need it.

--
Fabien.

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Fabien COELHO
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] proposal: session server side variables
Следующее
От: Pavan Deolasee
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] rewrite HeapSatisfiesHOTAndKey