| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pg Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Snapshot management, final |
| Date: | 2008-04-23 13:25:15 |
| Message-ID: | 1208957115.4259.1312.camel@ebony.site |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
On Wed, 2008-04-23 at 08:21 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 18:13 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > Simon Riggs wrote:
> > >
> > > > OK, so it can;t be copied to a longer lived memory context?
> > >
> > > If you need that ability, please explain.
> >
> > No, I wish to prevent that, not enable it.
>
> I see. Sure, we don't have that problem. In fact, we didn't have it
> before either, so I'm not sure I see your point :-)
You originally said "because its not needed" but didn't explain why. I
wanted to make sure there was no loophole. I'm not trying to make any
other point, just checking.
Forgive me for being dense, but what is there to stop you using a
CopySnapshot in TopMemoryContext? If you did, there would be no way to
free it, nor would we notice it had been done, AFAICS. Not anything I'm
thinking about doing, though.
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-04-23 13:43:44 | Re: Snapshot management, final |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-04-23 12:24:36 | Re: Snapshot management, final |