Re: Transaction-lifespan memory leak with plpgsql DO blocks

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Transaction-lifespan memory leak with plpgsql DO blocks
Date: 2013-11-12 16:22:14
Message-ID: 20131112162214.GE23777@awork2.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2013-11-12 11:18:32 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Or we could say "what the heck are you doing executing tens of
> thousands of DO blocks? Make it into a real live function;
> you'll save a lot of cycles on parsing costs." I'm not sure that
> this is a usage pattern we ought to be optimizing for.

Exactly, I think it's not worth spending much code/complexity on that
issue.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2013-11-12 16:25:03 Re: Errors on missing pg_subtrans/ files with 9.3
Previous Message Tom Lane 2013-11-12 16:18:32 Transaction-lifespan memory leak with plpgsql DO blocks