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
