Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com> writes: >> Ahh, I hadn't considered that. So one idea would be to only track >> negative entries on caches where we know they're actually useful. That >> might make the performance hit of some of the other ideas more >> tolerable. Presumably you're much less likely to pollute the namespace >> cache than some of the others.
> Ok, after reading the code I see I only partly understood what you were > saying. In any case, it might still be useful to do some testing with > CATCACHE_STATS defined to see if there's caches that don't accumulate a > lot of negative entries. There definitely are, according to my testing, but by the same token it's not clear that a shutoff check would save anything. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers