From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, 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 06:13:39 |
Message-ID: | 200001170613.BAA13224@candle.pha.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!
Go for it. The setheapoverride name was so confusing, people just
probably left it in, not knowing what it did.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
pgman(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 | 2000-01-17 06:15:25 | Re: [HACKERS] Temp Table Memory Leak |
Previous Message | The Hermit Hacker | 2000-01-17 06:09:46 | Re: [HACKERS] Temp Table Memory Leak |