Re: removal of dangling temp tables

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: removal of dangling temp tables
Date: 2018-12-28 04:43:14
Message-ID: 20181228044314.GG3210@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 12:05:34AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> The server code allocates arrays, but that's fine because that code is
> recompiled. Extensions only pass pointers around -- they don't create
> any additional arrays.

There are many exotic extensions which could be using sizeof(PGPROC)
as that's a popular structure, so I am glad that 246a6c8f did not find
its way down. So thanks for what you have done!
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2018-12-28 05:45:20 Re: Compiling on Termux
Previous Message Kohei KaiGai 2018-12-28 04:21:30 add_partial_path() may remove dominated path but still in use