On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I experimented with trying to do this and ran into a problem: where > exactly would you store the evaluated arguments when you don't know > how many of them there will be? And even if you did know how many of > them there will be, wouldn't that mean that evalFunc or evaluateExpr > would have to palloc a buffer of the correct size for each invocation? > That's far more heavyweight than the current implementation, and > minimizing CPU usage inside pgbench is a concern. It would be > interesting to do some pgbench runs with this patch, or the final > patch, and see what effect it has on the TPS numbers, if any, and I > think we should. But the first concern is to minimize any negative > impact, so let's talk about how to do that.
Good point. One simple idea here would be to use a custom pgbench script that has no SQL commands and just calculates the values of some parameters to measure the impact without depending on the backend, with a fixed number of transactions. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
