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

Re: SRF memory mgmt patch (was [HACKERS] Concern about

From: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
To: PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: SRF memory mgmt patch (was [HACKERS] Concern about
Date: 2002-08-30 17:51:35
Message-ID: 3D6FB0A7.1080409@joeconway.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Joe Conway wrote:
> I'm looking at this now. I suspect the easy fix is to remove 
> ExecClearTuple from per_MultiFuncCall, but I'll try to understand what's 
> going on first.
> 

On second thought, *all* functions failing is what you expected, right 
Tom? I just changed TupleGetDatum() as we discussed:

#define TupleGetDatum(_slot, _tuple) \
   PointerGetDatum(ExecStoreTuple(_tuple, _slot, InvalidBuffer, false))

and now everything works again. Is this the preferred fix and/or is it 
worth spending more time to dig into this?

Joe



In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Matthew T. OConnorDate: 2002-08-30 17:59:22
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pgaccess - where to store the own data
Previous:From: Joe ConwayDate: 2002-08-30 17:34:32
Subject: Re: SRF memory mgmt patch (was [HACKERS] Concern about

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Joe ConwayDate: 2002-08-30 18:51:43
Subject: Re: SRF memory mgmt patch (was [HACKERS] Concern about
Previous:From: Joe ConwayDate: 2002-08-30 17:34:32
Subject: Re: SRF memory mgmt patch (was [HACKERS] Concern about

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