On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 6:18 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> I'm looking at the combined patches 0003-0005, which are essentially all >> about adding a function to obtain relation OID from (tablespace, >> filenode). It takes care to look through the relation mapper, and uses >> a new syscache underneath for performance. > >> One question about this patch, originally, was about the usage of >> that relfilenode syscache. It is questionable because it would be the >> only syscache to apply on top of a non-unique index. > > ... which, I assume, is on top of a pg_class index that doesn't exist > today. Exactly what is the argument that says performance of this > function is sufficiently critical to justify adding both the maintenance > overhead of a new pg_class index, *and* a broken-by-design syscache? > > Lose the cache and this probably gets a lot easier to justify. As is, > I think I'd vote to reject altogether.
I already voted that way, and nothing's happened since to change my mind. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
