On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Just for completeness, I attach another form of the patch that I thought > about for a bit. This adds the ability for UNLISTEN ALL to revert the > backend to the state where subsequent UNLISTENs don't cost anything. > This could be of value in a scenario where you have pooled connections > and just a small fraction of the client threads are using LISTEN. That > seemed like kind of an unlikely use-case though. The problem is that > this patch adds some cycles to transaction commit/abort for everyone, > whether they ever use LISTEN/UNLISTEN/DISCARD or not. It's not a lot of > cycles, but even so I'm thinking it's not a win overall. Comments?
This is so lightweight I'd be inclined to go for it, even if the use case is pretty narrow. Do you think you can actually construct a benchmark where the difference is measurable? ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
