Why you didn't reply this messages.
I was searching for this one several hours, thanks for M.Taghizadeh. I
think, if it place in contribution section of postgresql, it will avoid
wasting several hours for peoples like me that wants this one.
Does it have a bad implementaion?
Sorry I think it is a
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- abandonded the falloc() idea. There really aren't that many
short-lived allocations in the PL/PgSQL compiler, and using falloc()
made it difficult to use List. Instead, make the CurrentMemoryContext
the long-lived function context, and explicitly pfree
Ameen - Etemady wrote:
Why you didn't reply this messages.
I was searching for this one several hours, thanks for M.Taghizadeh. I
think, if it place in contribution section of postgresql, it will avoid
wasting several hours for peoples like me that wants this one.
Does it have a bad
On Mon, 2005-02-07 at 12:55 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Ameen - Etemady wrote:
Why you didn't reply this messages.
I was searching for this one several hours, thanks for M.Taghizadeh. I
think, if it place in contribution section of postgresql, it will avoid
wasting several hours for
John Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It still does not answer his question, being if this is the way core
will want to go?
I've been waiting to see other comments on it. I think this is
certainly not the long-term solution, but if enough people think
it is useful as a short-term hack then
On Mon, 2005-02-07 at 10:41 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
My recollection is that I was not nearly as worried about short-term
pallocs in the plpgsql code itself, as about leakage in various main-
backend routines that get called incidentally during parsing.
backend/parser/ is quite cavalier about
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 2005-02-07 at 10:41 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
My recollection is that I was not nearly as worried about short-term
pallocs in the plpgsql code itself, as about leakage in various main-
backend routines that get called incidentally during parsing.
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
WRT calls to backend/parser, I can see LookupTypeName (pl_comp.c:1060),
and parseTypeString (pl_comp.c:1627). Are these the only calls you had
in mind, or am I missing some?
I haven't looked lately, but my recollection is that there are just a
few calls
