From: | Thomas Hallgren <thomas(at)tada(dot)se> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Question about MemoryContexts and functions that returns |
Date: | 2006-03-22 06:33:32 |
Message-ID: | 4420EFBC.2030700@tada.se |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Thomas Hallgren <thomas(at)tada(dot)se> writes:
>
>> Is there a difference in how the executor treat a C function and a
>> function using a call handler that can cause this behavior?
>>
>
> Can't think of one. You'd better take a closer look at your call
> handler.
>
> gdb'ing with a watchpoint on writes to CurrentMemoryContext might be
> helpful at seeing whether the context is changing unexpectedly.
>
>
Yes, that was helpful. My fault of course. I had a comment in place that
explained exactly what ought to happen. Then the code did the exact
opposite. An excerpt:
/* a class loader or other mechanism might have connected
already. This
* connection must be dropped since its parent context is wrong.
*/
if(self->isMultiCall && SRF_IS_FIRSTCALL())
Invocation_assertConnect();
The Invocation_assertConnect() performs an SPI_connect(). Sigh...
Comments are dangerous :-)
Thanks for your help.
Kind Regards,
Thomas Hallgren
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dhanaraj M - Sun Microsystems | 2006-03-22 06:52:04 | How to put back?? |
Previous Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2006-03-22 06:24:42 | Re: 8.2 planning features |