From: | wieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Jan Wieck <wieck(at)debis(dot)com>, Karel Zak - Zakkr <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz>, Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Cache query (PREPARE/EXECUTE) |
Date: | 2000-02-24 00:16:31 |
Message-ID: | m12NlxH-0003ksC@orion.SAPserv.Hamburg.dsh.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> wieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) writes:
> > OTOH, this new per-object-context stuff could hand down some
> > lifetime flag, let's say MCXT_UNTIL_STATEMENT, MCXT_UTIL_XEND
> > and MCXT_UNTIL_INFINITY to start from.
>
> A good thing to keep in mind, but for the short term I'm not sure
> we need it; the proposed new contexts are all for indefinite-lifetime
> caches, so there's no chance to make them go away automatically.
> Eventually we might have more uses for limited-lifetime contexts,
> though.
Sure, was only what I thought might be useful in some cases.
If not used, would it hurt to have support for it either?
Some unused List*'ers somewhere - nothing important.
> Something else that needs to be looked at is how memory contexts
> are tied to "portals" presently. That mechanism probably needs
> to be redesigned. I have to admit I don't understand what it's
> for...
U2? Makes 2 of us.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#========================================= wieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) #
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rolf Grossmann | 2000-02-24 00:53:12 | Re: [BUGS] First experiences with Postgresql 7.0 |
Previous Message | Roberto Cornacchia | 2000-02-24 00:10:36 | Re: about 7.0 LIMIT optimization |