| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: lookup_rowtype_tupdesc considered harmful |
| Date: | 2006-01-10 15:30:41 |
| Message-ID: | 1136907041.8826.5.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2006-01-10 at 09:47 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I had a further thought about this. What we're really talking about
> here is a reference-counted TupleDesc structure: it's got no necessary
> connection to TypeCacheEntry at all.
Yeah, I came to basically the same conclusion when implementing the
patch ("RefCountedTupleDesc" vs. a normal "TupleDesc"). I assumed that
there was a need to have two variants of the structure (one refcounted,
one not), but you're right that just adding refcounting to TupleDesc
directly doesn't have a lot of overhead, and avoids the confusion of two
similar-but-not-identical structs. I'll post a patch when it's finished
(hopefully tonight).
-Neil
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tony Caduto | 2006-01-10 15:38:11 | Question about Postgresql time fields(possible bug) |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2006-01-10 15:25:50 | Re: current_setting returns 'unset' |