Andrew Gierth writes:
> "Tom" == Tom Lane writes:
> Tom> We've discussed doing $SUBJECT off and on for nearly ten years,
> So, this is also changing (indirectly) the effect of ReScanExprContext
> so that deletes child contexts too.
Right, this is actually the main point so far as I'm concerned
> "Tom" == Tom Lane writes:
Tom> We've discussed doing $SUBJECT off and on for nearly ten years,
Tom> the oldest thread I could find about it being here:
Tom>
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/1186435268.16321.37.ca...@dell.linuxdev.us.dell.com
Tom> It's come up again every time
On 2015-02-26 18:05:46 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2015-02-26 17:45:26 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > If the changes breaks some code it's likely actually a good thing:
> > Because, as you say, using MemoryContextReset() will likely be the wrong
> > thing, and they'll want to
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2015-02-26 17:45:26 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> With all due respect, that's utterly wrong. I have looked at every single
>> MemoryContextReset call in the codebase, and as far as I can see the
>> *only* one that is in an error path is elog.c:336, which I'm quite certain
Andres Freund writes:
> I'd really not even be surprised if a committer backpatches a
> MemoryContextReset() addition, not realizing it behaves differently in
> the back branches.
As far as that goes, the only consequence would be a possible memory leak
in the back branches; it would not be a rea
Andres Freund writes:
> ... Without a compiler erroring out people won't
> notice that suddenly MemoryContextReset deletes much more; leading to
> possibly hard to find errors.
BTW, so far as *data* is concerned, the existing call deletes all data in
the child contexts already. The only not-alre
On 2015-02-26 17:45:26 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> Or are you arguing for an alternative proposal in which we remove
> MemoryContextReset (or at least rename it to something new) and thereby
> intentionally break all code that uses MemoryContextReset?
Yes, that I am.
After a
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2015-02-26 17:01:53 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> We've discussed doing $SUBJECT off and on for nearly ten years,
>> the oldest thread I could find about it being here:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/1186435268.16321.37.ca...@dell.linuxdev.us.dell.com
>> It's c
On 2015-02-26 23:31:16 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> Without a compiler erroring out people won't notice that suddenly
> MemoryContextReset deletes much more; leading to possibly hard to find
> errors. Context resets frequently are in error paths, and those won't
> necessarily be hit when running w
Hi,
On 2015-02-26 17:01:53 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> We've discussed doing $SUBJECT off and on for nearly ten years,
> the oldest thread I could find about it being here:
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/1186435268.16321.37.ca...@dell.linuxdev.us.dell.com
> It's come up again every time
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Thoughts? Any objections to pushing this?
> Is there any reason at all to keep
> MemoryContextResetButPreserveChildren()? Since your patch doesn't add
> any callers, it seems pretty likely that there's none anywhere.
The only reason to keep it is to
Tom Lane wrote:
> Thoughts? Any objections to pushing this?
Is there any reason at all to keep
MemoryContextResetButPreserveChildren()? Since your patch doesn't add
any callers, it seems pretty likely that there's none anywhere.
--
Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
Pos
We've discussed doing $SUBJECT off and on for nearly ten years,
the oldest thread I could find about it being here:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/1186435268.16321.37.ca...@dell.linuxdev.us.dell.com
It's come up again every time we found another leak of dead child
contexts, which happene
13 matches
Mail list logo
