From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: hyrax vs. RelationBuildPartitionDesc
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 15:21:45 -0300
Message-ID: <20190313182145.GA488@alvherre.pgsql> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+TgmoYHaOzfRQ7fk0kEYeAyd5-vEQ-HbyvDD0AZJmm8pEDe=A@mail.gmail.com>
On 2019-Mar-13, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 1:38 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > A bit, yes, but not overly so, and it's less fragile that not having
> > such a protection. Anything that allocates in CacheMemoryContext needs
> > to be very careful anyway.
>
> True, but I think it's more fragile than either of the options I proposed.
You do? Unless I misunderstood, your options are:
1. (the patch you attached) create a temporary memory context that is
used for everything, then at the end copy the good stuff to CacheMemCxt
(or a sub-context thereof). This still needs to copy.
2. create a temp memory context, do everything there, do retail freeing
of everything we don't want, reparenting the context to CacheMemCxt.
Hope we didn't forget to pfree anything.
How is any of those superior to what I propose?
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, robertmhaas@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: hyrax vs. RelationBuildPartitionDesc
In-Reply-To: <20190313182145.GA488@alvherre.pgsql>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox