On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 2014-03-13 11:26:10 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> > If there's not a catcache for pg_seclabels, I'd have no objection >> > to adding one. As for your "userland cache" objection, you certainly >> > could build such a thing using the existing inval callbacks (if we >> > had a catcache on pg_seclabels), and in any case what have userland >> > caches got to do with relcache? >> >> I avoided doing that for the same reasons that we've been careful to >> add no such cache to pg_largeobject_metadata: the number of large >> objects could be big enough to cause problems with backend memory >> consumption. Note that large objects are one of the object types to >> which security labels can be applied, so any concern that applies >> there also applies here. > > Good point. > > Are you primarily worried about the size of the cache, or about the size > of the queued invaldations?
Mostly the former. I can't really see the latter being a big deal. I mean, if you do a lot of DDL, you'll get more sinval resets, but oh well. We can't optimize away re-examining the data when it actually is changing underneath us. -- 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