| From: | Bear Giles <bgiles(at)coyotesong(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin(at)geoff(dot)dj> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Cory Nemelka <cnemelka(at)gmail(dot)com>, Aldo Sarmiento <aldo(at)bigpurpledot(dot)com>, pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Processing very large TEXT columns (300MB+) using C/libpq |
| Date: | 2017-10-24 16:39:16 |
| Message-ID: | CALBNtw5qg71eZbVOVx2rKgrRrN6_h85h+TOXpDbyQr2nANFYfQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
I meant the developer needs to add the locks, not the compiler. I think
they're just advisory but everyone always rights well-behaved code, right?
;-)
On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 4:17 AM, Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin(at)geoff(dot)dj> wrote:
> I wrote:
> > I assume that's because it can be certain at compile time that, since
> > both buff and buff2 are local, nothing else is going to modify the
> > source string (without some stack smashing, anyway).
>
> Ugh. Of course, they're not local: they're malloc'd; however it's
> still reasonable to assume that (since the pointers aren't passed
> anywhere) the buffers are untouched elsewhere, unless other threads
> are misbehaving.
>
> Geoff
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ferrell, Denise D CTR NSWCDD, H11 | 2017-10-25 12:30:21 | Database Error |
| Previous Message | Geoff Winkless | 2017-10-24 09:58:18 | Re: multiple sql results to shell |