| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | "Karel Zak - Zakkr" <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz>, "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Cache query (PREPARE/EXECUTE) |
| Date: | 2000-02-23 16:53:11 |
| Message-ID: | 4650.951324791@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> I think so. The problem is that Node struct couldn't be freed safely
> due to the lack of reference count in its definition. As far as I see
> plans could be destroyed only when the memory context in which
> they are placed are destroyed.
This is overly conservative. It should be safe to destroy a plan tree
via freeObject() if it was created via copyObject() --- and that is
certainly how the plan would get into a permanent memory context.
Currently, rule definitions are leaked in CacheContext at relcache
flushes. I plan to start freeing them via freeObject at the beginning
of the 7.1 development cycle --- I didn't want to risk it during the
runup to 7.0, but I believe it will work fine.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-02-23 16:56:02 | Re: [BUGS] First experiences with Postgresql 7.0 |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-02-23 16:51:56 | Re: [HACKERS] Beta for 4:30AST ... ? |