Subject: Re: pgbench stats per script & other stuff
References: <20160304184157.GA726930@alvherre.pgsql>
 <alpine.DEB.2.10.1603041943110.11128@sto>
Cc: Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>,
 Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>,
 "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
From: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
Message-ID: <56E85761.3030105@pgmasters.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 14:41:37 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1603041943110.11128@sto>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

On 3/4/16 1:53 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote:

>>> That is why the "fs" variable in process_file is declared "static",
>>> and why
>>> I wrote "some hidden awkwarness".
>>>
>>> I did want to avoid a malloc because then who would free the struct?
>>> addScript cannot to it systematically because builtins are static. Or it
>>> would have to create an on purpose struct, but I then that would be more
>>> awkwarness, and malloc/free to pass arguments between functions is not
>>> efficient nor very elegant.
>>>
>>> So the "static" option looked like the simplest & most elegant version.
>>
>> Surely that trick breaks if you have more than one -f switch, no?  Oh, I
>> see what you're doing: you only use the command list, which is
>> allocated, so it doesn't matter that the rest of the struct changes
>> later.
> 
> The two fields that matter (desc and commands) are really copied into
> sql_scripts, so what stays in the is overriden if used another time.
> 
>> I'm not concerned about freeing the struct; what's the problem with it
>> surviving until the program terminates?
> 
> It is not referenced anywhere so it is a memory leak.
> 
>> If somebody specifies thousands of -f switches, they will waste a few
>> bytes with each, but I'm hardly concerned about a few dozen kilobytes
>> there ...
> 
> Ok, so you prefer a memory leak. I hate it on principle.
> 
> Here is a v23 with a memory leak anyway.

Álvaro, it looks like you've been both reviewer and committer on this
work for some time.

The latest patch seems to address you final concern.  Can I mark it
"ready for committer"?

-- 
-David
david@pgmasters.net


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