Re: portals vs. memory contexts

From: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: vadim(at)krs(dot)ru (Vadim Mikheev)
Cc: hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: portals vs. memory contexts
Date: 1999-03-23 04:27:29
Message-ID: 199903230427.XAA03271@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > I notice you used portals for vacuum, rather than a separate memory
> > context. Can I ask why?
>
> Not me really -:)
> /*
> * Create a portal for safe memory across transctions. We need to
>
> Vacuum uses separate transaction for each of relations to be
> vacuumed. VACPNAME is special portal name that is not cleaned
> at commit/abort.
>
> >
> > I am considering creating an expression portal or memory context to
> > prevent the memory leaks from the utils/adt functions.
>
> Will you try to fix problems with WHERE a = lower(b) ?

Yes, this will fix that too.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 1999-03-23 04:28:10 Re: [HACKERS] portals vs. memory contexts
Previous Message Erik Riedel 1999-03-23 04:14:55 Re: [HACKERS] optimizer and type question