> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >Is this patch going to be applied?
> I am waiting for an update from Dmitry.
> cheers
> andrew

I believe this is some kind of misunderstanding, sorry if from my part,
but I don't think any further updates are necessary.

> >>But why do we have to call spi_freeplan? pltcl, which has prepared 
> >>queries, doesn't require this AFAICS. If memory leaks are an issue, 
> >>maybe we should bless the object into a class with a DESTROY method that 
> >>calls spi_freeplan automatically (not sure to do that in XS but I assume 
> >>it's possible).

I remember though that my answer to this question didn't hit the list so it's 
here again,
in case that was meant by 'the update':

I thought of that, indeed the automatic cleanup would be better from one point
of view, but I thought also about that the existing SPI interface is not
object-oriented, so I've extended it in functional style, and that the
mirroring of C SPI functions into Perl would be less encumbered by glue layers,
and again, implementing such a glue layer on top of new spi_ functions would be

I also remember I heard about plans about writing a DBI-style API over SPI, and
thought that such (future/imaginary) layer would be ideal for implementing
queries as objects ( including DESTROY ).

Another thing, automatic destruction of a query would prohibit passing the
query handle outside a perl function where the handle has the scope. True, it
is possible to keep the reference count and the handle from destruction in
$_SHARED{}, if necessary, but when finally the handle has to be released, a
wrapper for spi_freeplan() has to be called anyway. 

        Dmitry Karasik

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
       subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
       message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to