Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
> Ah, I see what you mean. In implementing this, I wasn't sure the best
> way to provide these two sorts of TupleDesc references. My first thought
> was to add a "use ResourceOwner?" boolean parameter to the routines that
> create and destroy references to TupleDescs:
No, I wouldn't do that. I would keep the routines you mention ignorant
of ResourceOwner, because I think that the vast majority of tupdesc
usage will NOT be using ResourceOwners. Only the places where a pointer
to a cached tupdesc is handed out need to deal with this. This excludes
practically all of the executor, for instance.
If you're finding yourself writing a large and invasive patch, I think
you're doing it wrong. I'm envisioning something pretty localized.
regards, tom lane
