| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: parse_oper cache |
| Date: | 2009-12-27 19:45:47 |
| Message-ID: | 15120.1261943147@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> it does make me wonder whether there's any point in retaining
> CacheMemoryContext at all.
Well, as per backend/utils/mmgr/README:
CacheMemoryContext --- permanent storage for relcache, catcache, and
related modules. This will never be reset or deleted, either, so it's
not truly necessary to distinguish it from TopMemoryContext. But it
seems worthwhile to maintain the distinction for debugging purposes.
I'm not sure about the word "maintain" here; I can't recall whether
there was any comparable concept before we invented the memory context
mechanism. But I still think it's useful to distinguish cache activity
from generic permanent memory allocations.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-12-27 19:57:56 | Re: parse_oper cache |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-12-27 19:36:21 | Re: parse_oper cache |