From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: move PartitionBoundInfo creation code |
Date: | 2018-11-14 01:09:09 |
Message-ID: | 8f09a80f-bf6a-8487-2563-ef69054593ed@lab.ntt.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2018/11/13 22:59, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2018-Nov-13, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 09:58:08AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> "the context that was active when the function was called" is typically
>>> expressed simply as "the current memory context". Perhaps the whole
>>> phrase can be reduced to "The object returned by this function is wholly
>>> allocated in the current memory context"?
Yeah, don't know why I had to put it in such convoluted manner.
>> Yes, that looks cleaner. I am planning to do a last lookup round on
>> tomorrow morning my time before committing, so I may still tweak a
>> couple of other words...
>
> Cool.
Thanks Michael.
> I gave the patch a read and it looks reasonable to me.
>
> Memory management in RelationBuildPartitionDesc is crummy, but I don't
> think it's this patch's fault.
Are you perhaps referring to the discussion about partitioning cache
management we had a few months back, but decided to postpone any
development work to PG 12? The following thread, maybe:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/143ed9a4-6038-76d4-9a55-502035815e68%40lab.ntt.co.jp
Thanks,
Amit
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-11-14 01:09:37 | Re: [Bug Fix]ECPG: cancellation of significant digits on ECPG |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-11-14 01:04:12 | Re: move PartitionBoundInfo creation code |