On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > This is overly conservative. It should be safe to destroy a plan tree
> > via freeObject() if it was created via copyObject() --- and that is
> > certainly how the plan would get into a permanent memory context.
> >
>
> I proposed the implementation of copyObject() which keeps the
> references among objects once before. It seems unnatural to me
> that such kind of implementation would never be allowed by this
> restriction.
>
> Why is memory context per plan bad ?
One context is more simple.
We talking about a *cache*. If exist interface for this cache andall operations are with copy/freeObject it not has
restriction.For how action it will restriction?
The PlanCacheMemoryContext will store space only, it isn't space for any action.
Karel Z.
