| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: errbacktrace |
| Date: | 2019-09-30 18:16:47 |
| Message-ID: | f666e360-aec1-c7d0-fb0e-03a9a323814b@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-09-27 17:50, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2019-Sep-13, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
>> On 2019-Aug-20, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>
>>> The memory management of that seems too complicated. The "extra"
>>> mechanism of the check/assign hooks only supports one level of malloc.
>>> Using a List seems impossible. I don't know if you can safely do a
>>> malloc-ed array of malloc-ed strings either.
>>
>> Here's an idea -- have the check/assign hooks create a different
>> representation, which is a single guc_malloc'ed chunk that is made up of
>> every function name listed in the GUC, separated by \0. That can be
>> scanned at error time comparing the function name with each piece.
>
> Peter, would you like me to clean this up for commit, or do you prefer
> to keep authorship and get it done yourself?
If you want to finish it using the idea from your previous message,
please feel free. I won't get to it this week.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2019-09-30 18:21:24 | Re: Partitioning versus autovacuum |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2019-09-30 18:08:46 | Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys |