Patch applied. Thanks.
---
Dmitry Tkach wrote:
> Ok, this sit around for a while, and, because there was no responses, I assume, that
>nothing jumps out
> at you as being terribly with my logic...
> Here is the patch (se
Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at:
http://candle.pha.pa.us/cgi-bin/pgpatches
I will try to apply it within the next 48 hours.
---
Dmitry Tkach wrote:
> Ok, this sit around for
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> With no solution on the horizon, and the author saying it fixes some of
> his trigger queries, I am inclined to apply this. I don't see any
> downside except for some extra pfrees if we ever fix this.
Sure, apply away. I was mainly expressing my angst
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > With no solution on the horizon, and the author saying it fixes some of
> > his trigger queries, I am inclined to apply this. I don't see any
> > downside except for some extra pfrees if we ever fix this.
>
> Sure, apply away. I wa
With no solution on the horizon, and the author saying it fixes some of
his trigger queries, I am inclined to apply this. I don't see any
downside except for some extra pfrees if we ever fix this.
---
Dmitry Tkach wrote:
>
Dmitry Tkach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Frankly, I don't see what is your problem with it at all :-)
Mainly, I don't like wasting cycles and code space on partial solutions
;-). There's certainly no reason you shouldn't make this patch locally
if the leak is getting in your way, but for an of
Tom Lane wrote:
>Dmitry Tkach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>*** nodeIndexscan.c.origFri Apr 19 10:29:57 2002
>>--- nodeIndexscan.c Fri Apr 19 10:30:00 2002
>>***
>>*** 505,510
>>--- 505,514
>> */
>> ExecClearTuple(scanstate->cstate.cs_ResultTup
Dmitry Tkach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> *** nodeIndexscan.c.origFri Apr 19 10:29:57 2002
> --- nodeIndexscan.c Fri Apr 19 10:30:00 2002
> ***
> *** 505,510
> --- 505,514
> */
> ExecClearTuple(scanstate->cstate.cs_ResultTupleSlot);
>
Ok, this sit around for a while, and, because there was no responses, I assume, that
nothing jumps out
at you as being terribly with my logic...
Here is the patch (see the original problem description in the bottom)... It seems to
be working (at least that query,
that used to be running out of m
