Re: generic plans and "initial" pruning

On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 at 10:00, Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 5:26 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 10:06 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > After sleeping on this, I think we do need the checks after all the
> > > ExecInitNode() calls too, because we have many instances of the code
> > > like the following one:
> > >
> > >     outerPlanState(gatherstate) = ExecInitNode(outerNode, estate, eflags);
> > >     tupDesc = ExecGetResultType(outerPlanState(gatherstate));
> > >     <some code that dereferences outDesc>
> > >
> > > If outerNode is a SeqScan and ExecInitSeqScan() returned early because
> > > ExecOpenScanRelation() detected that plan was invalidated, then
> > > tupDesc would be NULL in this case, causing the code to crash.
> > >
> > > Now one might say that perhaps we should only add the
> > > is-CachedPlan-valid test in the instances where there is an actual
> > > risk of such misbehavior, but that could lead to confusion, now or
> > > later.  It seems better to add them after every ExecInitNode() call
> > > while we're inventing the notion, because doing so relieves the
> > > authors of future enhancements of the ExecInit*() routines from
> > > worrying about any of this.
> > >
> > > Attached 0003 should show how that turned out.
> > >
> > > Updated 0002 as mentioned in the previous reply -- setting pointers to
> > > NULL after freeing them more consistently across various ExecEnd*()
> > > routines and using the `if (pointer != NULL)` style over the `if
> > > (pointer)` more consistently.
> > >
> > > Updated 0001's commit message to remove the mention of its relation to
> > > any future commits.  I intend to push it tomorrow.
> >
> > Pushed that one.  Here are the rebased patches.
> >
> > 0001 seems ready to me, but I'll wait a couple more days for others to
> > weigh in.  Just to highlight a kind of change that others may have
> > differing opinions on, consider this hunk from the patch:
> >
> > -   MemoryContextDelete(node->aggcontext);
> > +   if (node->aggcontext != NULL)
> > +   {
> > +       MemoryContextDelete(node->aggcontext);
> > +       node->aggcontext = NULL;
> > +   }
> > ...
> > +   ExecEndNode(outerPlanState(node));
> > +   outerPlanState(node) = NULL;
> >
> > So the patch wants to enhance the consistency of setting the pointer
> > to NULL after freeing part.  Robert mentioned his preference for doing
> > it in the patch, which I agree with.
>
> Rebased.

There is a leak reported at [1], details for the same is available at [2]:
diff -U3 /tmp/cirrus-ci-build/src/test/regress/expected/select_views.out
/tmp/cirrus-ci-build/build/testrun/regress-running/regress/results/select_views.out
--- /tmp/cirrus-ci-build/src/test/regress/expected/select_views.out
2023-12-19 23:00:04.677385000 +0000
+++ /tmp/cirrus-ci-build/build/testrun/regress-running/regress/results/select_views.out
2023-12-19 23:06:26.870259000 +0000
@@ -1288,6 +1288,7 @@
       (102, '2011-10-12', 120),
       (102, '2011-10-28', 200),
       (103, '2011-10-15', 480);
+WARNING:  resource was not closed: relation "customer_pkey"
 CREATE VIEW my_property_normal AS
        SELECT * FROM customer WHERE name = current_user;
 CREATE VIEW my_property_secure WITH (security_barrier) A

[1] - https://cirrus-ci.com/task/6494009196019712
[2] -
https://api.cirrus-ci.com/v1/artifact/task/6494009196019712/testrun/build/testrun/regress-running/regress/regression.diffs

Regards,
Vingesh