| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 2/5] Make relpathbackend return a statically result instead of palloc()'ing it |
| Date: | 2013-01-08 20:27:23 |
| Message-ID: | 27570.1357676843@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Uhm, we don't have & need palloc support and I don't think
> relpathbackend() is a good justification for adding it.
I've said from the very beginning of this effort that it would be
impossible to share any meaningful amount of code between frontend and
backend environments without adding some sort of emulation of
palloc/pfree/elog. I think this patch is just making the code uglier
and more fragile to put off the inevitable, and that we'd be better
served to bite the bullet and do that.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2013-01-08 20:30:49 | Re: Cascading replication: should we detect/prevent cycles? |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2013-01-08 20:26:36 | Re: json api WIP patch |