Re: hyrax vs. RelationBuildPartitionDesc

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: hyrax vs. RelationBuildPartitionDesc
Date: 2019-03-13 16:51:05
Message-ID: CA+Tgmoabw8KW9rx6ThnUTR_ofJC8GwVaC+XMe7HkZvsG7J1rvA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 12:42 PM Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> I remember going over this code's memory allocation strategy a bit to
> avoid the copy while not incurring potential leaks CacheMemoryContext;
> as I recall, my idea was to use two contexts, one of which is temporary
> and used for any potentially leaky callees, and destroyed at the end of
> the function, and the other contains the good stuff and is reparented to
> CacheMemoryContext at the end. So if you have any accidental leaks,
> they don't affect a long-lived context. You have to be mindful of not
> calling leaky code when you're using the permanent one.

Well, that assumes that the functions which allocate the good stuff do
not also leak, which seems a bit fragile.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2019-03-13 16:51:59 Re: Offline enabling/disabling of data checksums
Previous Message Tom Lane 2019-03-13 16:50:55 Re: Using the return value of strlcpy() and strlcat()