Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoZ6z8+PqygTR=yC=tFCMJ6uUYWTLFKTSKXaHu=jYCjLLg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 7:27 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > I noticed that RelationBuildPartitionKey is generating a partition key > in a temp context, then creating a private context and copying the key > into that. That seems leftover from some previous iteration of some > other patch; I think it's pretty reasonable to create the new context > right from the start and allocate the key there directly instead. Then > there's no need for copy_partition_key at all. We could do that, but the motivation for the current system was to avoid leaking memory in a long-lived context. I think the same technique is used elsewhere for similar reasons. I admit I haven't checked whether there would actually be a leak here if we did it as you propose, but I wouldn't find it at all surprising. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: