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.
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 |