On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 5:28 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > After mulling it over for awhile, I still think the extra checking > is appropriate, especially since this patch is enlarging the set of > things that can happen in parallel mode. How do you want to proceed?
I sort of assumed you were going to commit the patch as you had it. I'm not a huge fan of that, but I don't think that's it's catastrophe, either. It pains me a bit to add CPU cycles that I consider unnecessary to a very frequently taken code path, but as you say, it's not a lot of CPU cycles, so maybe nobody will ever notice. I actually really wish we could find some way of making subtransactions significantly lighter-wait, because I think the cost of spinning up and tearing down a trivial subtransaction is a real performance problem, but fixing that is probably a pretty hard problem whether this patch gets committed or not. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com