Re: The return value of allocate_recordbuf() - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: The return value of allocate_recordbuf()
Date
Msg-id CAB7nPqQQUSJfxraG202friJMvxefwFkYKx6XqJz69fNK7jiLwQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: The return value of allocate_recordbuf()  (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: The return value of allocate_recordbuf()
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> The first patch looks good to me basically. But I have one comment:
> shouldn't we expose pg_malloc_extended as a global function like
> we did pg_malloc? Some frontends might need to use it in the future.

Yes, it makes sense as the other functions do it too. So I refactored
the patch and defined a new static inline routine,
pg_malloc_internal(), that all the other functions call to reduce the
temperature in this code path that I suppose can become quite hot even
for frontends. In the second patch I added as well what was needed for
pg_rewind.
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: The return value of allocate_recordbuf()
Next
From: Sawada Masahiko
Date:
Subject: Freeze avoidance of very large table.