| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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
| 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 |