Re: Using Expanded Objects other than Arrays from plpgsql
От | Andrey Borodin |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Using Expanded Objects other than Arrays from plpgsql |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 0AC229FA-A3F1-43FD-B0DC-A46A73FEAFF7@yandex-team.ru обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Using Expanded Objects other than Arrays from plpgsql (Michel Pelletier <pelletier.michel@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Using Expanded Objects other than Arrays from plpgsql
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hello everyone in this thread. > On 21 Jan 2025, at 23:12, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > somebody will review this I'm trying to dig into the patch set. My knowledge of the module is shallow and I hope to improve it by reading more patchesin this area. This patch set provides a new test, which runs just fine without the patch. But it's somewhat expected, such optimizationsmust be transparent for user... And the coverage of newly invented mark_stmt() 42.37%. Some of branches are easy noops, but some are not. I assume as a granted that we will not every get into infinite loop in a recursive call of mark_stmt(). expr_is_assignment_source() is named like if it should return nool, but it's void. I could not grasp from reading the code one generic question about new optimization rule. What cost does checking for possiblein-place update incurs to code cannot have this optimization? Is it O(numer_of_arguments) of for every assignmentexecution? Thanks! Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: