On 2024-Dec-03, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Tue, Dec 3, 2024 at 4:03 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > > > > If you don't like the idea of a static memcxt in the one block where > > it's needed, I propose to store a new memcxt in PGOutputData, to be used > > exclusively for publications, with a well defined lifetime. > > +1. This sounds like a way to proceed at least for HEAD. For > back-branches, it is less clear whether changing PGOutputData is a > good idea. Can such a change in back branches break any existing > non-core code (extensions)?
We can put the new member at the end of the struct, it shouldn't damage anything even if they're using this struct -- which I find pretty unlikely. The only way that could break anything is if somebody is allocating/using arrays of it, which sounds even more unlikely. If we don't want to accept that risk (for which I see no argument, but happy to be proven wrong), I would suggest to use the foreach-pfree pattern Michael first proposed for the backbranches, and the new memory context in master. I think this is conducive to better coding overall as we clean things up in this area. -- Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
