hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 05:23:23PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> I experimented with the attached, very quick-n-dirty patch to collect >> format_type results during the initial scan of pg_type, instead. > So, I applied it to brand new HEAD from git, Result: > From total of 9173 queries it went down to 4178. > Originally 5000 type queries, now 19! > This is actually strange given that previously it was asking querying > about 83 separate type oids. But, as far as I was able to check with > "pg_restore -l" (from -Fc dump), results are the same. Hm. So we're still no wiser than before about how such a small (in terms of number of objects) database could have produced so many getFormattedTypeName calls. Plus, this result raises a new question: with the patch, I think you shouldn't have seen *any* queries of that form. Where are the 19 survivors coming from? I don't suppose you could send me a schema-only dump of that database, off-list? I'm now quite curious. > But since we're looking at it, and with both patches applied, I looked > at the next most common query. Which is: > [ collection of details about a function ] > The thing is - even though it was called 1804 times, dump contains data only > about 107 functions (pg_restore -l schema.dump | grep -c FUNCTION), so it kinda > seems that 94% of these calls is not needed. Hm. It's not doing that for *every* row in pg_proc, at least. I speculate that it is collecting and then not printing the info about functions that are in extensions --- can you check on how many there are of those? (Actually, if you've got a whole lot of objects inside extensions, maybe that explains the 5000 calls?) regards, tom lane
