From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Concern about memory management with SRFs |
Date: | 2002-08-29 01:46:55 |
Message-ID: | 3D6D7D0F.1080307@joeconway.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> I thought about that and didn't like it; it may simplify the simple case
> but I think it actively gets in the way of less-simple cases. For
> example, the FIRSTCALL code might generate some transient structures
> along with ones that it wants to keep. Also, your recommended
> pseudocode allows the author to write code between the end of the
> FIRSTCALL branch and the PERCALL_SETUP call; that code will not execute
> in a predictable context if we do it this way.
>
> I'm also not happy with the implied assumption that every call to the
> function executes in the same transient context. That is true at the
> moment but I'd just as soon not see it as a wired-in assumption.
Fair enough. I'll take a shot at the necessary changes (if you want me
to). Is it OK to use fcinfo->flinfo->fn_mcxt as the long term memory
context or is there a better choice? Is funcctx->multi_call_memory_ctx a
suitable name in place of funcctx->fmctx?
Joe
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-08-29 01:50:41 | Re: Concern about memory management with SRFs |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-08-29 01:32:09 | Re: Concern about memory management with SRFs |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-08-29 01:50:41 | Re: Concern about memory management with SRFs |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-08-29 01:32:09 | Re: Concern about memory management with SRFs |