Peter Geoghegan <pe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > Having taken another look at the code, I wonder if we wouldn't have > been better off just fastpathing out of pgss_store in the first call > (in a pair of calls made by a backend as part an execution of some > non-prepared query) iff there is already an entry in the hashtable - > after all, we're now going to the trouble of acquiring the spinlock > just to increment the usage for the entry by 0 (likewise, every other > field), which is obviously superfluous. I apologise for not having > spotted this before submitting my last patch.
On reflection, we can actually make the code a good bit simpler if we push the responsibility for initializing the usage count correctly into entry_alloc(), instead of having to fix it up later. Then we can just skip the entire adjust-the-stats step in pgss_store when building a sticky entry. See my commit just now. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers