Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 18:30:42 +0100
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
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
Message-ID: <20171103173042.rgtuwowlfbv54sae@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <12195.1509139543@sss.pgh.pa.us>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170306-137-4415bd-dirty (1.8.0)
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:

> > We could do that, but the motivation for the current system was to
> > avoid leaking memory in a long-lived context.

Yeah, my approach here is to use a CATCH block that deletes the memory
context just created, thus avoiding a long-lived leak.

Tom Lane wrote:

> Another key point is to avoid leaving a corrupted relcache entry behind
> if you fail partway through.

Sure ... in the code as I have it we only assign the local variable to
the relcache entry if everything is succesful.  So no relcache
corruption should result.

> 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.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


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