Re: A performance issue with Memoize
От | Richard Guo |
---|---|
Тема | Re: A performance issue with Memoize |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAMbWs48d4JLv2uQsvK0EfqeNRACiyLT9yTUyu_4oSGxvKSR96g@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: A performance issue with Memoize (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 1:22 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Apologies for not having noticed this thread before. I'm taking
a look at it now. However, while sniffing around this I found
what seems like an oversight in paramassign.c's
assign_param_for_var(): it says it should compare all the same
fields as _equalVar except for varlevelsup, but it's failing to
compare varnullingrels. Is that a bug? It's conceivable that
it's not possible to get here with varnullingrels different and
all else the same, but I don't feel good about that proposition.
I tried adding
@@ -91,7 +91,10 @@ assign_param_for_var(PlannerInfo *root, Var *var)
pvar->vartype == var->vartype &&
pvar->vartypmod == var->vartypmod &&
pvar->varcollid == var->varcollid)
+ {
+ Assert(bms_equal(pvar->varnullingrels, var->varnullingrels));
return pitem->paramId;
+ }
}
}
Yeah, I think it should be safe to assert that the varnullingrels is
equal here. The Var is supposed to be an upper-level Var, and two same
such Vars should not have different varnullingrels at this point,
although the varnullingrels might be adjusted later in
identify_current_nestloop_params according to which form of identity 3
we end up applying.
Thanks
Richard
equal here. The Var is supposed to be an upper-level Var, and two same
such Vars should not have different varnullingrels at this point,
although the varnullingrels might be adjusted later in
identify_current_nestloop_params according to which form of identity 3
we end up applying.
Thanks
Richard
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: