Tom Lane wrote:
> wieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) writes:
> > OTOH, this new per-object-context stuff could hand down some
> > lifetime flag, let's say MCXT_UNTIL_STATEMENT, MCXT_UTIL_XEND
> > and MCXT_UNTIL_INFINITY to start from.
> A good thing to keep in mind, but for the short term I'm not sure
> we need it; the proposed new contexts are all for indefinite-lifetime
> caches, so there's no chance to make them go away automatically.
> Eventually we might have more uses for limited-lifetime contexts,
Sure, was only what I thought might be useful in some cases.
If not used, would it hurt to have support for it either?
Some unused List*'ers somewhere - nothing important.
> Something else that needs to be looked at is how memory contexts
> are tied to "portals" presently. That mechanism probably needs
> to be redesigned. I have to admit I don't understand what it's
U2? Makes 2 of us.
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#========================================= wieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) #
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Rolf Grossmann||Date: 2000-02-24 00:53:12|
|Subject: Re: [BUGS] First experiences with Postgresql 7.0 |
|Previous:||From: Roberto Cornacchia||Date: 2000-02-24 00:10:36|
|Subject: Re: about 7.0 LIMIT optimization |