"Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> This patch doesn't seem to cope with cases where the supplied tuple has
>> the wrong number of columns, and it doesn't look like it's being careful
>> about dropped columns either.  Also, that's a mighty bizarre-looking
>> choice of cache memory context in coerce_to_tuple ... but then again,
>> why are you bothering with a cache at all for temporary arrays?

> I am sorry, Tom. But I don't understand. I can check number of columns,
> ofcourse and I'll do it. What cache for temporary arrays do you mean?

I thought that making coerce_to_tuple depend on estate->err_func was
pretty bizarre, and that there was no need for any "cache" at all for
arrays that need only live as long as the function runs.  All you are
saving here is a palloc/pfree cycle, which is not worth the obscurantism
and risk of bugs (are you sure natts can never change?).

No, cache there is ugly. But I don't have idea about more efective implementation of it :-(. First version of this patch was more clean. and little bit slow. This cache save 10%.

BTW, if you want this patch to make it into 8.2, it needs to be fixed
and resubmitted *very* soon.

I understand, but I am not able work on it in next four days. And I need help with it from Neil. It will be for 8.3.

Thank you

Emotikony a pozadi programu MSN Messenger ozivi vasi konverzaci. http://messenger.msn.cz/

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Reply via email to