On 2019/03/15 2:56, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 1:16 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> Actually, now that I've absorbed a bit more about 898e5e329,
>> I don't like very much about it at all. I think having it
>> try to hang onto pointers into the relcache is a completely
>> wrongheaded desig
On 2019/03/15 1:02, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 3:13 AM Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> I'm curious why DestroyPartitionDirectory doesn't do
>> hash_destroy(pdir->pdir_hash)?
>
> What would be the point? It's more efficient to let context teardown
> take care of it.
Yeah, I only notic
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 1:40 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> So here's my problem with that argument: you're effectively saying that
> you needn't write any API spec for the PartitionDirectory functions
> because you intend that every person calling them will read their code,
> carefully and fully, before us
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 1:16 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Actually, now that I've absorbed a bit more about 898e5e329,
> I don't like very much about it at all. I think having it
> try to hang onto pointers into the relcache is a completely
> wrongheaded design decision, and the right way for it to work
Robert Haas writes:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 12:56 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> It's completely not acceptable that every reader of this code should
>> have to reverse-engineer these design assumptions, especially given
>> how shaky they are.
> Well, one reason is that everything you just said is basi
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 12:56 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Agreed, but the comments in this area are crap. Why doesn't
> CreatePartitionDirectory say something like
>
> * The object lives inside the given memory context and will be
> * freed when that context is destroyed. Nonetheless, the caller
> *
I wrote:
> Agreed, but the comments in this area are crap.
Actually, now that I've absorbed a bit more about 898e5e329,
I don't like very much about it at all. I think having it
try to hang onto pointers into the relcache is a completely
wrongheaded design decision, and the right way for it to wo
Robert Haas writes:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 3:13 AM Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> I'm curious why DestroyPartitionDirectory doesn't do
>> hash_destroy(pdir->pdir_hash)?
> What would be the point? It's more efficient to let context teardown
> take care of it.
Agreed, but the comments in this area
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 3:13 AM Amit Langote
wrote:
> I'm curious why DestroyPartitionDirectory doesn't do
> hash_destroy(pdir->pdir_hash)?
What would be the point? It's more efficient to let context teardown
take care of it.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterpr
At Thu, 14 Mar 2019 17:18:29 +0900, Amit Langote
wrote in
> On 2019/03/14 16:46, Amit Langote wrote:
> > On 2019/03/14 16:32, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> >> At Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:13:23 +0900, Amit Langote
> >> wrote in
> >> <3ad792cd-0805-858e-595c-c09e9d1ce...@lab.ntt.co.jp>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
On 2019/03/14 16:46, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2019/03/14 16:32, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
>> At Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:13:23 +0900, Amit Langote
>> wrote in
>> <3ad792cd-0805-858e-595c-c09e9d1ce...@lab.ntt.co.jp>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm curious why DestroyPartitionDirectory doesn't do
>>> hash_destroy(p
On 2019/03/14 16:32, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> At Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:13:23 +0900, Amit Langote
> wrote in
> <3ad792cd-0805-858e-595c-c09e9d1ce...@lab.ntt.co.jp>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm curious why DestroyPartitionDirectory doesn't do
>> hash_destroy(pdir->pdir_hash)?
>
> Maybe it is trashed involved
At Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:13:23 +0900, Amit Langote
wrote in
<3ad792cd-0805-858e-595c-c09e9d1ce...@lab.ntt.co.jp>
> Hi,
>
> I'm curious why DestroyPartitionDirectory doesn't do
> hash_destroy(pdir->pdir_hash)?
Maybe it is trashed involved in destruction of es_query_cxt or
planner_cxt?
--
Kyotar
Hi,
I'm curious why DestroyPartitionDirectory doesn't do
hash_destroy(pdir->pdir_hash)?
Thanks,
Amit
14 matches
Mail list logo
