| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] copyObject() ? |
| Date: | 1999-02-23 15:16:13 |
| Message-ID: | 11353.919782973@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> AFAIC the relation between objects is not copied correctly
> by copyObject() (i.e the same pointers to an object are copied
> to different pointers by copyObject()).
True, but it seems irrelevant to me --- as Jan Wieck was just pointing
out, no code should ever depend on pointer-equality in parse trees or
plan trees anyway.
> There is a way to maintain the list of (old,new) pairs during
> copyObject() operations.
I think we'd be better off fixing any places that mistakenly assume
pointer compare is sufficient. You didn't say which version you were
testing, but we know there are a few bugs like that in the current
CVS sources because of collateral damage from the EXCEPT/INTERSECT
patch. I believe the plan is to either fix them or back out the patch
before 6.5.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Philip Shiels | 1999-02-23 15:18:36 | Alterations to backend/client protocol |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 1999-02-23 15:05:15 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: Anyone understand shared-memory space usage? |