Re: Status of plperl inter-sp calling

From: Tim Bunce <Tim(dot)Bunce(at)pobox(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Tim Bunce <Tim(dot)Bunce(at)pobox(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Status of plperl inter-sp calling
Date: 2010-01-06 10:08:19
Message-ID: 20100106100819.GO2505@timac.local
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 07:06:35PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Tim Bunce <Tim(dot)Bunce(at)pobox(dot)com> writes:
> > The only question I have at the moment, before I try implementing this,
> > is the the need for freeing the plan. When would that be needed?
>
> There's probably no strong need to do it at all,

That's good.

> unless you are dropping your last reference to the plan.

Uh, now I'm confused again. The way I envisage it, each imported
function would contain a plan. So each would have the one and only
reference to that plan. So, if there was a need to drop them, I would be
dropping the last reference to the plan.

Let me ask the question another way... is there any reason to drop plans
other than limiting memory usage?

I couldn't find anything in the docs to suggest there was but want to be
sure.

Tim.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message black light 2010-01-06 10:57:00 Change Catalog
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2010-01-06 09:59:42 Re: New VACUUM FULL