| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SRF memory mgmt patch (was [HACKERS] Concern about memory management with SRFs) |
| Date: | 2002-08-30 00:01:32 |
| Message-ID: | 14329.1030665692@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
> As you said, if the next ExecStoreTuple will try to do an
> ExecClearTuple(), ISTM that it should be removed from
> per_MultiFuncCall()/SRF_PERCALL_SETUP().
No, it's not necessary: ExecClearTuple knows the difference between a
full and an empty TupleSlot.
I'm not sure where the excess free is coming from, but it ain't
ExecClearTuple's fault. You might try setting a breakpoint at
heap_freetuple to see if that helps.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Larry Rosenman | 2002-08-30 00:02:44 | Re: [HACKERS] Proposed GUC Variable |
| Previous Message | Larry Rosenman | 2002-08-29 23:56:20 | Re: tweaking MemSet() performance |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Larry Rosenman | 2002-08-30 00:02:44 | Re: [HACKERS] Proposed GUC Variable |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2002-08-29 23:48:54 | Re: SRF memory mgmt patch (was [HACKERS] Concern about memory management |