Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
OTOH I can't see trying to back-patch a solution like that. If we want
to fix this in the back branches (and note the complaint linked above is
against 8.3), I think we have to do it as attached.
Thoughts?
I've been using textin(record_out(NEW)) in
Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr writes:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
Thoughts?
I've been using textin(record_out(NEW)) in generic partitioning
triggers, and you can find examples of that trick in the wiki, so I
think we have users of that in the field.
I think explicit calls
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
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
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I wonder though if we ought to think about running output functions in
a short-lived memory context instead of the executor's main context.
We've considered that before, I think, and it's always been the path
of least
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I wonder though if we ought to think about running output functions in
a short-lived memory context instead of the executor's main context.
We've considered that before, I think, and
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I wonder though if we ought to think about running output functions in
a short-lived memory context instead of the
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
Yeah. The thing that concerns me is that I think we have a pretty
decent number of memory contexts where the expected number of
allocations is very small ... and we have the context *just in case*
we do more than that in certain instances. I've
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 05:50:08PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
Yeah. The thing that concerns me is that I think we have a pretty
decent number of memory contexts where the expected number of
allocations is very small ... and we have the context
I looked into the problem complained of here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2012-11/msg00279.php
which turns out to have nothing to do with joins and everything to do
with the fact that record_out() leaks memory like mad. It leaks both
the strings returned by the per-column output
10 matches
Mail list logo
