Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ah, I see what you mean. In implementing this, I wasn't sure the best
> way to provide these two sorts of TupleDesc references. My first thought
> was to add a "use ResourceOwner?" boolean parameter to the routines that
> create and destroy references to TupleDescs:

No, I wouldn't do that.  I would keep the routines you mention ignorant
of ResourceOwner, because I think that the vast majority of tupdesc
usage will NOT be using ResourceOwners.  Only the places where a pointer
to a cached tupdesc is handed out need to deal with this.  This excludes
practically all of the executor, for instance.

If you're finding yourself writing a large and invasive patch, I think
you're doing it wrong.  I'm envisioning something pretty localized.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?


Reply via email to