From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: WIP: Faster Expression Processing v4 |
Date: | 2017-03-22 14:52:40 |
Message-ID: | 20170322145240.vt2iolwt6vpmx33z@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017-03-22 10:41:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I've been busily hacking away on this, trying to make things cleaner and
> fix a couple of bugs I stumbled across. (Confusion between ExecQual and
> ExecCheck, for instance - we apparently lack regression tests exercising
> constraints-returning-null in corner cases such as table rewrite.) It
> will probably be a day or two more before I'm done.
Thanks!
> A couple of naming questions:
>
> * I concur with Heikki's dislike for the file name execInterpExpr.c.
> Would it make it any better to switch to execExprInterp.c? I think
> that having all this stuff under a common pattern execExpr*.c would
> be a good thing (and I notice you've already got one comment referring
> to them that way ...)
That works for me.
> * execQual.c doesn't seem to have a unifying reason to exist anymore.
> It certainly has little to do with evaluating typical qual expressions;
> what's left in there seems to be mostly concerned with SRFs. I feel
> like it might be a good idea to rename it, but to what? execExprUtils.c
> perhaps? Or maybe we should destroy it altogether, shoving the SRF
> stuff into nodeFunctionscan.c and moving what little remains into
> execUtils.c.
Yea, I was wondering about that too. What would we do with
GetAttributeByName/Num?
> * I do not like the function name ExecInstantiateExpr(). Webster's
> defines "instantiate" as "to represent (an abstraction) by a concrete
> instance", which does not seem to me to have a lot to do with what this
> function actually does.
It perhaps makes a *bit* more sense if you view it from the POV that,
with the future JIT support (WIP versions of which I posted previously),
it'd actually create a compiled function which'd largely be independent
of the of ->steps (except for the non-hotpath functions, which'd still
end up using it). So one of the above "conrete instances" would be the
interpeted version, another the compiled one. No, not an entirely
convincing argument.
> There's nothing very abstract about its input.
> More, the implication of "instantiate" is that you can instantiate any
> number of representatives of the same abstraction, but this scribbles
> on the input in a one-way fashion. I think perhaps something like
> ExecPrepareExpr or ExecFinishExpr or something along that line would
> be better, but nothing is really standing out as le mot juste.
Either of those work, but they don't strike me as perfect either, but I
can't come up with something better (ExecReadyExprForExec()?).
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-03-22 14:54:07 | Re: Metadata about relation creation & full scans. |
Previous Message | Dave Page | 2017-03-22 14:50:34 | Re: Monitoring roles patch |