Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is it OK to use fcinfo->flinfo->fn_mcxt as the long term memory
> context or is there a better choice?
That is the correct choice.
> Is funcctx->multi_call_memory_ctx a
> suitable name in place of funcctx->fmctx?
No objection here.
Tom Lane wrote:
> I thought about that and didn't like it; it may simplify the simple case
> but I think it actively gets in the way of less-simple cases. For
> example, the FIRSTCALL code might generate some transient structures
> along with ones that it wants to keep. Also, your recommended
>
Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Maybe SRF_FIRSTCALL_INIT()(init_MultiFuncCall()) should:
> - save CurrentMemoryContext to funcctx->per_call_memory_ctx
>(new member of the struct)
> - save fcinfo->flinfo->fn_mcxt to funcctx->multi_call_memory_ctx
>(nee funcctx->fmctx)
> - leave fci
Tom Lane wrote:
> I think we should document that any memory that is allocated in the
> first call for use in subsequent calls must come from the memory context
> saved in FuncCallContext (and let's choose a more meaningful name than
> fmctx, please). This would mean adding code like
>
> o
