From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: WIP: pl/pgsql cleanup |
Date: | 2005-01-20 12:57:59 |
Message-ID: | 5283.1106225879@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, 2005-01-18 at 01:02 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It might be better to keep CurrentMemoryContext pointing at a temp
>> context, and translate malloc() to MemoryContextAlloc(function_context)
>> rather than just palloc(). (Of course you could hide this in a macro,
>> maybe falloc()?)
> Are there really enough short-lived pallocs that this is worth the
> trouble?
Not sure, but it seems like at least as straightforward a translation
as the other way. More to the point, it makes clear the difference
between what is meant to be a long-lived data structure and what isn't.
> One potential issue is that there are plenty of places where
> we'd want to falloc(), but don't have the function easily available
> (e.g. in the parser).
Why not? You'd need to keep the context-to-use in a static variable,
but that's no great difficulty considering that plpgsql function
parsing needn't be re-entrant.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2005-01-20 13:08:20 | Translations at pgfoundry (was Re: [PATCHES] Latest Turkish translation updates) |
Previous Message | Zhenbang Wei | 2005-01-20 07:26:53 | psql zh_TW translation update for CURRENT |