From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Questionable coding in proc.c & lock.c |
Date: | 2000-07-28 15:59:42 |
Message-ID: | 195.964799982@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> writes:
> btw, even gram.y does touch some of the heap cache (for pg_type) to look
> for type existance; don't know if that will be a problem but maybe that
> needs to be rethought also...
We'd need to postpone that processing till parse analysis, else we still
have the underlying problem. Fortunately we are not parsing C ;-) so
it seems to me it shouldn't be necessary to do any table lookups during
initial parsing...
I assume you are looking at the 'setof' processing? Offhand it seems to
me that this code is broken anyway: use of a relation type should refer
to the tuple type, but should *not* imply SETOF, at least IMHO.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-07-28 16:22:37 | Re: pg_dump & performance degradation |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-07-28 15:51:57 | Re: Questionable coding in proc.c & lock.c |