Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hmm, okay. There's the additional complication that we need to handle
> record types (see RecordCacheArray in typcache.c). Since I don't think
> we need reference counting for those,
Yeah, you do. See record_out for instance, and reflect on the fact that
it can have no idea what the called I/O functions are liable to do.
> where lookup_rowtype_tupdesc() returns a pointer to this struct:
> typedef struct
> {
> struct tupleDesc tdesc; /* must be first field */
> TypeCacheEntry *tentry; /* pointer to owning TypeCacheEntry,
> or NULL if this is a record type */
> } MagicTupleDesc;
> and where TypeCacheEntry has been modified to contain a reference count
> and an "is dead?" flag.
No, the refcount and isdead flags should be in *this* struct, and
there's really no need for a back-link to TypeCacheEntry. Think harder
about the situation where there are both old and new tupdescs
outstanding for a single typcache entry.
> Is there actually a need for the (ugly) "magic
> value" hackery used by catcache?
It's a safety check to make sure that what got passed to
release_rowtype_tupdesc is really one of these animals and not just any
old TupleDesc. It's not *necessary*, granted, but given that the compiler
is not going to help people avoid such errors, I think it's prudent.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
