| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alexander Korotkov <akorotkov(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-committers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pgsql: Move memory management away from writetup() and tuplesort_put*() |
| Date: | 2022-08-26 00:53:16 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvrZ9Ky2LcWwcKsbdYChA850JE5qS=kGJiTNWS8mbBXZHw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers |
On Wed, 27 Jul 2022 at 17:29, Alexander Korotkov
<akorotkov(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
> src/backend/utils/sort/tuplesort.c | 78 ++++++++++++++++----------------------
I was wondering about the following comment that this commit added:
+/*
+ * Write a stored tuple onto tape.tuple. Unless the slab allocator is
+ * used, after writing the tuple, pfree() the out-of-line data (not the
+ * SortTuple struct!), and increase state->availMem by the amount of
+ * memory space thereby released.
+ */
static void
writetuple(Tuplesortstate *state, LogicalTape *tape, SortTuple *stup)
LogicalTable has no field named 'tuple' so I'm thinking the
"tape.tuple" is a mistake?
If so, maybe the comment should be:
/*
* Write 'stup' out onto 'tape' and, unless using the slab allocator,
pfree stup's
* tuple and adjust the memory accounting accordingly.
*/
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | John Naylor | 2022-08-26 07:03:58 | pgsql: Add optimized functions for linear search within byte arrays |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2022-08-25 22:26:05 | pgsql: Remove configure probe for sockaddr_in6 and require AF_INET6. |