Re: Anonymous code blocks - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dimitri Fontaine
Subject Re: Anonymous code blocks
Date
Msg-id 878wg7upka.fsf@hi-media-techno.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Anonymous code blocks  (Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine@hi-media.com>)
Responses Re: Anonymous code blocks
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine@hi-media.com> writes:
> Patch applies cleanly and build cleanly too, basic examples are working
> fine. 

I've been reading through the code and am going to mark it as ready for
commiter, as only remarks I have are probably because I do not know
enough about PostgreSQL internals, and the one I missed are in the same
category. 

The patch is easy to read and all it does looks straightforward, even
for me :)

Here we go:

*** a/src/backend/tcop/utility.c
--- b/src/backend/tcop/utility.c
...
*************** UtilityReturnsTuples(Node *parsetree)
*** 1147,1155 ****
...
-         case T_ExplainStmt:
-             return true;
- 

Is this not a oversight in the final patch?


+     /* This is short-lived, so needn't allocate in function's cxt */
+     plpgsql_Datums = palloc(sizeof(PLpgSQL_datum *) * datums_alloc);
...
+     compile_tmp_cxt = MemoryContextSwitchTo(func_cxt);

I wonder why not having the datums into the func_cxt too.

Regards,
-- 
dim


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: KaiGai Kohei
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Largeobject access controls
Next
From: Euler Taveira de Oliveira
Date:
Subject: Re: numeric_to_number() function skipping some digits