| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Rethinking MemoryContext creation |
| Date: | 2017-12-11 16:59:19 |
| Message-ID: | 12544.1513011559@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 12/11/2017 05:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> However, unless we want to run around and touch all the ~ 150 calls
>> with constant arguments, we'd have to set things up so that the default
>> behavior for AllocSetContextCreate is to not copy. This risks breaking
>> callers in extensions. Not entirely sure if it's worth that --- any
>> thoughts?
> I don't think silently breaking extensions is particularly attractive
> option, so I guess we'll have to run around and tweak the ~150 calls.
Meh. I suppose that of the ~150 call sites, there are probably only
a dozen or two where it would actually make a performance difference,
so maybe this needn't be quite as invasive as I first thought.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-12-11 17:22:09 | Re: Rethinking MemoryContext creation |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2017-12-11 16:46:43 | Re: Rethinking MemoryContext creation |