From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Evaluate arguments of correlated SubPlans in the referencing ExprState |
Date: | 2023-03-02 19:33:35 |
Message-ID: | 2129737.1677785615@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> Around
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20230224015417.75yimxbksejpffh3%40awork3.anarazel.de
> I suggested that we should evaluate the arguments of correlated SubPlans as
> part of the expression referencing the subplan.
> Here's a patch for that.
I looked through this, and there is one point that is making me really
uncomfortable. This bit is assuming that we can bind the address of
the es_param_exec_vals array right into the compiled expression:
+ ParamExecData *prm = &estate->es_param_exec_vals[paramid];
+
+ ExecInitExprRec(lfirst(pvar), state, &prm->value, &prm->isnull);
Even if that works today, it'd kill the ability to use the compiled
expression across more than one executor instance, which seems like
a pretty high price. Also, I think it probably fails already in
EvalPlanQual contexts, because EvalPlanQualStart allocates a separate
es_param_exec_vals array for EPQ execution.
I think we'd be better off inventing an EEOP_SET_PARAM_EXEC step type
that is essentially the inverse of EEOP_PARAM_EXEC/ExecEvalParamExec,
and then evaluating each parameter value into the expression's
scratch Datum/isnull fields and emitting SET_PARAM_EXEC to copy those
to the correct ParamExecData slot.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2023-03-02 19:36:43 | Re: Operation log for major operations |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2023-03-02 18:53:14 | Re: Memory leak from ExecutorState context? |