From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Memory leaks on SRF rescan |
Date: | 2008-02-22 03:07:29 |
Message-ID: | 21135.1203649649@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 21:42 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah. I think it's hopeless to expect these functions to all hew to
>> the straight and narrow path. It seems to me that the right way is for
>> the sub-select to somehow run in its own "per-query" context.
> Hmm, I was thinking of just fixing this by arranging for the
> FuncCallContext's multi-call context to be a special context created by
> the function scan, and that is reset/deleted at the appropriate time.
> Would this not fix the issue as well?
That might work, particularly if we could arrange for all the functions
invoked in a particular subquery to share the same "per query" context.
Want to take a whack at it?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jaime Casanova | 2008-02-22 04:30:42 | Re: 2WRS [WIP] |
Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2008-02-22 02:59:50 | Re: Including PL/PgSQL by default |