From: | JanWieck(at)t-online(dot)de (Jan Wieck) |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL HACKERS <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: update on TOAST status' |
Date: | 2000-07-11 22:46:26 |
Message-ID: | 200007112246.AAA20376@hot.jw.home |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> JanWieck(at)t-online(dot)de (Jan Wieck) writes:
> > I've looked at textout() and, well, your style of detoasting
> > arguments looks alot better and easier. From the way it's
> > implemented I assume the per tuple memory context is done
> > too, no?
>
> Not yet --- I'm running regress tests on it right now, though.
> You're right that I'm assuming the function routines can leak
> memory without trouble.
>
> (We might need to avoid leaks in the comparison routines that are used
> for indexes, but otherwise I think this scheme will work comfortably.)
That sounds bad. At least not very good.
So we better add a PG_FREEARG_xxx(ptr, argno) macro that does
the pfree if the pointer is different from the one in the
argument.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Lamar Owen | 2000-07-11 23:10:15 | Re: Slashdot discussion |
Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2000-07-11 22:30:28 | Re: Foreign key bugs + other problems |