Re: Largeobject Access Controls (r2460)

Kevin Grittner <kevin.grittner@wicourts.gov>

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>

To: "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Cc: "Greg Smith" <greg@2ndquadrant.com>, "KaiGai Kohei" <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, "KaiGai Kohei" <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp>, "Takahiro Itagaki" <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp>, <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, "Jaime Casanova" <jcasanov@systemguards.com.ec>

Date: 2010-01-25T16:53:32Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> It might be better to try a test case with lighter-weight objects,
> say 5 million simple functions.

A dump of that quickly settled into running a series of these:

SELECT proretset, prosrc, probin,
pg_catalog.pg_get_function_arguments(oid) AS funcargs,
pg_catalog.pg_get_fun
ction_identity_arguments(oid) AS funciargs,
pg_catalog.pg_get_function_result(oid) AS funcresult, proiswindow,
provolatile, proisstrict, prosecdef, proconfig, procost, prorows, (S
ELECT lanname FROM pg_catalog.pg_language WHERE oid = prolang) AS
lanname FROM pg_catalog.pg_proc WHERE oid =
'1404528'::pg_catalog.oid

(with different oid values, of course).

Is this before or after the point you were worried about.  Anything
in particular for which I should be alert?

-Kevin