From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Petr Jelinek <pjmodos(at)pjmodos(dot)net> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Anonymous code blocks |
Date: | 2009-09-22 12:33:25 |
Message-ID: | 878wg7upka.fsf@hi-media-techno.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> writes:
> Patch applies cleanly and build cleanly too, basic examples are working
> fine.
I've been reading through the code and am going to mark it as ready for
commiter, as only remarks I have are probably because I do not know
enough about PostgreSQL internals, and the one I missed are in the same
category.
The patch is easy to read and all it does looks straightforward, even
for me :)
Here we go:
*** a/src/backend/tcop/utility.c
--- b/src/backend/tcop/utility.c
...
*************** UtilityReturnsTuples(Node *parsetree)
*** 1147,1155 ****
...
- case T_ExplainStmt:
- return true;
-
Is this not a oversight in the final patch?
+ /* This is short-lived, so needn't allocate in function's cxt */
+ plpgsql_Datums = palloc(sizeof(PLpgSQL_datum *) * datums_alloc);
...
+ compile_tmp_cxt = MemoryContextSwitchTo(func_cxt);
I wonder why not having the datums into the func_cxt too.
Regards,
--
dim
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Euler Taveira de Oliveira | 2009-09-22 12:51:57 | Re: numeric_to_number() function skipping some digits |
Previous Message | KaiGai Kohei | 2009-09-22 12:23:12 | Re: [PATCH] Largeobject access controls |