Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: TupleDesc refcounting

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: TupleDesc refcounting
Date: 2006-01-12 15:40:43
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-patches
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> Ah, I see what you mean. In implementing this, I wasn't sure the best
> way to provide these two sorts of TupleDesc references. My first thought
> was to add a "use ResourceOwner?" boolean parameter to the routines that
> create and destroy references to TupleDescs:

No, I wouldn't do that.  I would keep the routines you mention ignorant
of ResourceOwner, because I think that the vast majority of tupdesc
usage will NOT be using ResourceOwners.  Only the places where a pointer
to a cached tupdesc is handed out need to deal with this.  This excludes
practically all of the executor, for instance.

If you're finding yourself writing a large and invasive patch, I think
you're doing it wrong.  I'm envisioning something pretty localized.

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: David WheelerDate: 2006-01-12 20:07:23
Subject: Re: domain constraints and UNKNOWN params
Previous:From: Neil ConwayDate: 2006-01-12 10:05:46
Subject: Re: TupleDesc refcounting

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group