| From: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: lazy detoasting |
| Date: | 2018-04-11 19:57:12 |
| Message-ID: | 87r2nlfrfv.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>>>>> "Chapman" == Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> writes:
Chapman> There's precedent for that kind of thing in PL/Java already
Chapman> ... objects that Java considers alive as long as some code
Chapman> holds a reference to them, but proxy for things in PG that may
Chapman> only have function-call lifetime or cursor-row lifetime, etc.
Chapman> If they are closed by Java code (or the Java GC finds them
Chapman> unreachable) first, they have to remember to release their PG
Chapman> stuff; if the PG stuff goes first, they have to update
Chapman> themselves to throw a suitable "you've kept me past my sell-by
Chapman> date" exception if the Java code tries to use them again.
How's the code doing this? I couldn't find it in a cursory scan.
--
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2018-04-11 20:00:22 | Re: pgsql: New files for MERGE |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-04-11 19:47:53 | Re: Partitioned tables and covering indexes |