| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Replace use malloc() & friend by memory contexts for plperl and pltcl |
| Date: | 2016-11-08 03:48:25 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqS46GXV_A6bSXj-AWXGU6EUTeixX0OhDvBzAxaJpacpxg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> wrote:
> On 8/31/16 2:57 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Seems like a good idea, I'm guessing it slipped through the cracks. Do you
> want to add it to the next CF?
0001 has been pushed as d062245b.
> Why mark one as volatile but not the other? Based on [1] ISTM there's no need to mark either as volatile?
plan_cxt is referenced in the PG_TRY block, and then modified in the
PG_CATCH block, so it seems to me that we had better mark it as
volatile to be POSIX-compliant. That's not the case of oldcontext.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Langote | 2016-11-08 04:08:45 | Re: Declarative partitioning - another take |
| Previous Message | Haribabu Kommi | 2016-11-08 03:43:16 | Re: Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM) |