From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
        Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
        Maksim Milyutin <milyutinma@gmail.com>,
        Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Subject: Re: Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table
In-reply-to: <20171103173042.rgtuwowlfbv54sae@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <20171103173042.rgtuwowlfbv54sae@alvherre.pgsql>
Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
	message dated "Fri, 03 Nov 2017 18:30:42 +0100"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <10309.1509736144.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2017 15:09:04 -0400
Message-ID: <10310.1509736144@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> It might work to build the new key in a context that's initially a
>> child of CurrentMemoryContext, then reparent it to be a child of
>> CacheMemoryContext when done. 

> That's another way (than the PG_TRY block), but I think it's more
> complicated with no gain.

I disagree: PG_TRY blocks are pretty expensive.

			regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers