Re: Parallel Seq Scan
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Parallel Seq Scan |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmobN=wADVaUTwsH-xqvCdovkeRasuXw2k3R6vmpWig7raw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Parallel Seq Scan (Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Parallel Seq Scan
Re: Parallel Seq Scan |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 7:56 PM, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote: > I see no mention in this thread of varatt_indirect, but I anticipated > datumSerialize() reacting to it the same way datumCopy() reacts. If > datumSerialize() can get away without doing so, why is that? Good point. I don't think it can. Attached is a patch to fix that. This patch also includes some somewhat-related changes to plpgsql_param_fetch() upon which I would appreciate any input you can provide. plpgsql_param_fetch() assumes that it can detect whether it's being called from copyParamList() by checking whether params != estate->paramLI. I don't know why this works, but I do know that this test fails to detect the case where it's being called from SerializeParamList(), which causes failures in exec_eval_datum() as predicted. Calls from SerializeParamList() need the same treatment as calls from copyParamList() because it, too, will try to evaluate every parameter in the list. Here, I've taken the approach of making that check unconditional, which seems to work, but I'm not sure if some other approach would be better, such as adding an additional Boolean (or enum context?) argument to ParamFetchHook. I *think* that skipping this check is merely a performance optimization rather than anything that affects correctness, and bms_is_member() is pretty cheap, so perhaps the way I've done it is OK. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: