Dimitri Fontaine <dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr> writes:
> Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>> I think explicit calls like that actually wouldn't be a problem,
>> since they'd be run in a per-tuple context anyway. The cases that
>> are problematic are hard-coded I/O function calls. I'm worried
>> about the ones like, say, plpgsql's built-in conversion operations.
>> We could probably fix printtup's usage with some confidence, but
>> there are a lot of other ones.
> That's a good reason to get them into a shorter memory context, but
> which? per transaction maybe? shorter?
It would have to be per-tuple to do any good. The existing behavior
is per-query and causes problems if lots of rows are output. In plpgsql
it would be a function-call-lifespan leak.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
