Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: SRF memory mgmt patch (was [HACKERS] Concern about memory management with SRFs)

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>,Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>
Subject: Re: SRF memory mgmt patch (was [HACKERS] Concern about memory management with SRFs)
Date: 2002-08-29 17:18:14
Message-ID: 19627.1030641494@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
> Here's a patch to address Tom's SRF API memory management concerns, as 
> discussed earlier today on HACKERS.

Patch committed.

It seemed to me that pgstattuple.c does not really want to be an SRF,
but only a function returning a single tuple.  As such, it can provide
a fine example of using the funcapi.h tuple-building machinery *without*
the SRF machinery.  I changed it accordingly, but am not able to update
README.pgstattuple.euc_jp; Tatsuo-san, would you handle that?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2002-08-29 18:32:31
Subject: Re: C vs. C++ contributions
Previous:From: D'Arcy J.M. CainDate: 2002-08-29 17:17:35
Subject: Re: Proposed GUC Variable

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Manfred KoizarDate: 2002-08-29 17:21:48
Subject: Re: Visibility regression test
Previous:From: D'Arcy J.M. CainDate: 2002-08-29 17:17:35
Subject: Re: Proposed GUC Variable

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group