Re: [HACKERS] SearchSysCache, SysCacheGetAttr, and heap_getattr()

Stephen Frost writes: > There's some inconsistency when it comes to if we actually use > SysCacheGetAttr() when pulling an attribute for a tuple we got via > SearchSysCache(), or if we use heap_getattr(). > Maybe I'm missing something, but that seems less than ideal. Well,

[HACKERS] SearchSysCache, SysCacheGetAttr, and heap_getattr()

Greetings, There's some inconsistency when it comes to if we actually use SysCacheGetAttr() when pulling an attribute for a tuple we got via SearchSysCache(), or if we use heap_getattr(). Maybe I'm missing something, but that seems less than ideal. I've generally been under the belief that

[HACKERS] SearchSysCache

My program (indirectly) calls the following function twice, tuple = SearchSysCache(STATRELATT, ObjectIdGetDatum(relid), Int16GetDatum(colnum), 0, 0); The first time it assigns NULL to tuple, while the second time it assigns a valid pointer. Why is it like that? BTW, my program only optimize

Re: [HACKERS] SearchSysCache

uwcssa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My program (indirectly) calls the following function twice, tuple = SearchSysCache(STATRELATT, ObjectIdGetDatum(relid), Int16GetDatum(colnum), 0, 0); The first time it assigns NULL to tuple, while the second time it assigns a valid pointer. Why is it like

[HACKERS] SearchSysCache changes committed

I have committed changes to keep reference counts for system cache entries. This should eliminate the issues we've had with cache entries sometimes getting dropped while still in use. Some notes: 1. The routine formerly called SearchSysCacheTuple is now SearchSysCache(). It increments the