On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 1:55 AM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
> > I disagree with the conclusion though. It seems to me that if you
> > really have this workload that consists in these few queries and want
> > to get better performance, you'll anyway use a connection pooler
> > and/or use prepared statements, which will make this overhead
> > disappear entirely, and will also yield an even bigger performance
> > improvement. A quick test using pgbench -M prepared, with
> > track_planning enabled, with still way too many connections already
> > shows a 25% improvement over the -M simple without track_planning.
>
> I understand your point. But IMO the default setting basically should
> be safer value, i.e., off at least until the problem disappears.
+1 -- this regression seems unacceptable to me.
--
Peter Geoghegan