Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZ6z8+PqygTR=yC=tFCMJ6uUYWTLFKTSKXaHu=jYCjLLg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 7:27 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> I noticed that RelationBuildPartitionKey is generating a partition key
> in a temp context, then creating a private context and copying the key
> into that.  That seems leftover from some previous iteration of some
> other patch; I think it's pretty reasonable to create the new context
> right from the start and allocate the key there directly instead.  Then
> there's no need for copy_partition_key at all.

We could do that, but the motivation for the current system was to
avoid leaking memory in a long-lived context.  I think the same
technique is used elsewhere for similar reasons.  I admit I haven't
checked whether there would actually be a leak here if we did it as
you propose, but I wouldn't find it at all surprising.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tomas Vondra
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WIP: BRIN bloom indexes
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Parallel safety for extern params