Hello 2010/10/4 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>: > On Oct 3, 2010, at 7:02 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> It's not at all apparent that the code is even >> safe as-is, because it's depending on the unstated assumption that that >> static variable will get reset once per dictionary. The documentation >> is horrible: it doesn't really explain what the patch is doing, and what >> it does say is wrong. > > Yep. We certainly would need to convince ourselves that this is correct > before applying it, and that is all kinds of non-obvious. >
what is good documentation? This patch doesn't do more, than it removes palloc overhead on just one structure of TSearch2 ispell dictionary. It isn't related to some static variable - the most important is fact so this memory is unallocated by dropping of memory context. Regards Pavel Stehule > ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
