On 2024-Dec-03, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2024 at 4:03 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> >
> > If you don't like the idea of a static memcxt in the one block where
> > it's needed, I propose to store a new memcxt in PGOutputData, to be used
> > exclusively for publications, with a well defined lifetime.
>
> +1. This sounds like a way to proceed at least for HEAD. For
> back-branches, it is less clear whether changing PGOutputData is a
> good idea. Can such a change in back branches break any existing
> non-core code (extensions)?
We can put the new member at the end of the struct, it shouldn't damage
anything even if they're using this struct -- which I find pretty
unlikely. The only way that could break anything is if somebody is
allocating/using arrays of it, which sounds even more unlikely.
If we don't want to accept that risk (for which I see no argument, but
happy to be proven wrong), I would suggest to use the foreach-pfree
pattern Michael first proposed for the backbranches, and the new memory
context in master. I think this is conducive to better coding overall
as we clean things up in this area.
--
Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
