| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQLHackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: patch: tsearch - some memory diet |
| Date: | 2010-10-04 01:08:56 |
| Message-ID: | BFC2392A-9049-4019-BCCC-C5760FA3BF2D@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Oct 3, 2010, at 7:02 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> It's not at all apparent that the code is even
> safe as-is, because it's depending on the unstated assumption that that
> static variable will get reset once per dictionary. The documentation
> is horrible: it doesn't really explain what the patch is doing, and what
> it does say is wrong.
Yep. We certainly would need to convince ourselves that this is correct before applying it, and that is all kinds of non-obvious.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Steve Singer | 2010-10-04 03:19:56 | Re: Review: Fix snapshot taking inconsistencies |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-10-04 01:05:08 | Re: INSERT ... VALUES... with ORDER BY / LIMIT |