On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 02:08:28AM -0400, Corey Huinker wrote: > Bar-napkin math tells me in a worst-case architecture and braindead byte > alignment, we'd burn 64 bytes per struct, so the 100K tables cited would be > about 6.25MB of memory. > > The obvious low-memory alternative would be to make a prepared statement, > though that does nothing to cut down on the roundtrips. > > I think this is a good trade off.
I've not checked the patch in details or tested it, but caching this information to gain this speed sounds like a very good thing. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
