On Sat, 2023-07-29 at 12:44 -0400, Isaac Morland wrote:
> Essentially, "just" observe efficiently (somehow) that no change is
> needed, and skip changing it?
I gave this a try and it speeds things up some more.
There might be a surprise factor with an optimization like that,
though. If someone becomes accustomed to the function running fast,
then changing the search_path in the caller could slow things down a
lot and it would be hard for the user to understand what happened.
Also, there are a few implementation complexities because I think we
need to still trigger the same invalidation that happens in
assign_search_path().
Regards,
Jeff Davis
