Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > On 2017-09-28 18:52:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Uh, what? Access to fmgr_nbuiltins shouldn't be part of any critical path >> anymore after this change.
> Indeed. But the size of the the oid -> fmgr_builtins index array is > relevant now. We could of course just make that dependent on > FirstBootstrapObjectId, but that'd waste some memory. Not enough to notice, considering there are pg_proc OIDs up in the 8K range already. We blow 2KB of never-accessed space for far less good reason than this. >> I'm kind of -0.5 on that. I believe part of the argument for having >> things set up as they were was to allow external code to access the >> fmgr_builtins table (as my speed-test hack earlier today did). > You could still do that, you'd just end up with a second copy. Doesn't > seem bad for such an uncommon case. If I understand what you're proposing, it would involve the extension containing its *own* copy of the fmgr table, which seems pretty horrid. It wouldn't necessarily match the actual contents in the core executable. 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