Re: [HACKERS] RE: Getting rid of setheapoverride (was Re: [COMMITTERS] heap.c)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] RE: Getting rid of setheapoverride (was Re: [COMMITTERS] heap.c)
Date: 2000-01-17 05:35:33
Message-ID: 16364.948087333@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> Oh,I was just looking at heapoverride stuff quite accidentally.
> Yes, this call is ugly and should be replaced by CommandCounterIncrement().

OK, I'm running a build now with setheapoverride calls removed.
Will see what happens.

About half of the setheapoverride calls surrounded heap_update()
(formerly called heap_replace()) calls. AFAICS there is no need
for these calls unless heap_update itself needs them --- but there
are many calls to heap_update that do not have setheapoverride.
Perhaps heap_replace once needed setheapoverride but no longer does?

I am going to try just removing these calls without adding a
CommandCounterIncrement to replace them. If anyone knows that
this is a bad idea, let me know!

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2000-01-17 05:44:33 Re: [HACKERS] Temp Table Memory Leak
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2000-01-17 05:32:27 Re: [HACKERS] Temp Table Memory Leak