| From: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | vadim(at)krs(dot)ru (Vadim Mikheev) |
| Cc: | hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: portals vs. memory contexts |
| Date: | 1999-03-23 04:27:29 |
| Message-ID: | 199903230427.XAA03271@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > I notice you used portals for vacuum, rather than a separate memory
> > context. Can I ask why?
>
> Not me really -:)
> /*
> * Create a portal for safe memory across transctions. We need to
>
> Vacuum uses separate transaction for each of relations to be
> vacuumed. VACPNAME is special portal name that is not cleaned
> at commit/abort.
>
> >
> > I am considering creating an expression portal or memory context to
> > prevent the memory leaks from the utils/adt functions.
>
> Will you try to fix problems with WHERE a = lower(b) ?
Yes, this will fix that too.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-03-23 04:28:10 | Re: [HACKERS] portals vs. memory contexts |
| Previous Message | Erik Riedel | 1999-03-23 04:14:55 | Re: [HACKERS] optimizer and type question |