Re: Progress report: intraquery memory recovery in executor

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Progress report: intraquery memory recovery in executor
Date: 2000-07-10 14:08:58
Message-ID: 29989.963238138@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> Is it simple for the person writing the low level routines to choose
> (easily) to allocate 'temporary' memory vs. 'permanent' memory?

One of the main problems is that a low-level routine doesn't necessarily
know which is appropriate --- the answer may vary depending on where it
was called from. To do it that way, I think we'd end up decorating a
large number of internal APIs with extra MemoryContext arguments.
(This is exactly why we have a global CurrentMemoryContext in the first
place...)

That's why I wanted to do the management at the level of the Plan node
executor routines, which are high-level enough that they have some clue
what's going on.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2000-07-10 14:12:46 Re: Re: [BUGS] Unnexpected results using to_number()
Previous Message Mike Mascari 2000-07-10 14:03:54 Re: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs. MySQL