| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Hugo Mercier <hugo(dot)mercier(at)oslandia(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Detection of nested function calls |
| Date: | 2013-10-25 15:01:28 |
| Message-ID: | 3500.1382713288@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2013-10-25 10:18:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think the right way to attack it is to create some way for a Datum
>> value to indicate, at runtime, whether it's a flat value or an in-memory
>> representation.
> That sounds reasonable, and we have most of the infrastructure for it
> since the "indirect toast" thing got in.
Oh really? I hadn't been paying much attention to that, but obviously
I better go back and study it.
> I've thought about refcounting Datums several times, but I always got
> stuck when thinking about how to deal memory context resets and errors.
> Any ideas about that?
Not yet. But it makes no sense to claim that a Datum could have a
reference that's longer-lived than the memory context it's in, so
I'm not sure the context reset case is really a problem.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hugo Mercier | 2013-10-25 15:07:49 | Re: Detection of nested function calls |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2013-10-25 14:58:15 | Re: logical changeset generation v6.4 |