On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 12:48 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> I don't see how that works - the same expression can be evaluated multiple
> times at once, recursively. So you can't have things like FunctionCallInfoData
> shared. One key point of separating out the mutable data into something that
> can be relocated is precisely so that every execution can have its own
> "mutable" data area, without needing to change anything else.
Oh. That makes it harder.
> > Or another option would be: instead of having one giant allocation in which
> > we have to place data of every different type, have one allocation per kind
> > of thing. Figure out how many FunctionCallInfo objects we need and make an
> > array of them. Figure out how many NullableDatum objects we need and make a
> > separate array of those. And so on. Then just use pointers.
>
> Without the relative pointer thing you'd still have pointers into those arrays
> of objects. Which then would make the thing non-shareable.
Well, I guess you could store indexes into the individual arrays, but
then I guess you're not gaining much of anything.
It's a pretty annoying problem, really. Somehow it's hard to shake the
feeling that there ought to be a better approach than relative
pointers.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com