Re: Use %u to print user mapping's umid and userid
От | Etsuro Fujita |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Use %u to print user mapping's umid and userid |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 79e7c60c-9f89-2d57-dbdc-6d68f9111f39@lab.ntt.co.jp обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Use %u to print user mapping's umid and userid (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Use %u to print user mapping's umid and userid
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016/05/12 13:02, Tom Lane wrote: > Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp> writes: >> On 2016/05/11 18:03, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: >>> A call to GetForeignTable would incur a catalog lookup which means a >>> catalog table/index scan if corresponding entry is not in the cache. >>> This is followed by GetUserMapping() which is another catalog access. >>> That's bound to be expensive than an makeOid(), oidVal() call. >> Right, but such lookups have been incurred at the planning time (ie, >> build_simple_rel), and corresponding entries would be in the cache. So, >> the overhead in that recalculation at the execution time would be not >> that large in practice. No? > It's a mistake to assume that execution immediately follows planning. Yeah, that would not be the case in PREPARE/EXECUTE, right? > Having said that, I wonder whether you should be thinking less about > performance and more about correctness. Is a user mapping lookup done > at plan time still valid at execution, and if so what ensures that? I think if scanning a foreign join, the user mapping is still valid at execution, and that is ensured by RevalidateChachedQuery, IIUC. Best regards, Etsuro Fujita
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: