Jan Wieck <j...@wi3ck.info> wrote: >>> On 09/11/2015 09:38 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>>> Seems less invasive to fix SPI to delete in the opposite order?
> The remaining numbers indicate that other contexts are mostly used in > the intended fashion, but not strictly. This means there is definitely > potential for more edge cases, similar to the SPI example above. I guess the question is whether to add a pointer for each memory context to give the MemoryContextSetParent() function O(1) performance characteristics or add comments in front of this function to document how callers should organize their code to avoid O(N^2) performance. I generally prefer that callers of such a function need not be that aware of implementation details, so I would prefer the former. On the other hand, a grep indicates that there are two places that MemoryContextData.nextchild is set (and we therefore probably need to also set the new field), and Jan's proposed patch only changes one of them. If we do this, I think we need to change both places that are affected, so ResourceOwnerCreate() in resowner.c would need a line or two added. -- Kevin Grittner EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
