From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Ronan Dunklau <ronan(dot)dunklau(at)aiven(dot)io> |
Cc: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Önder Kalacı <onderkalaci(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: A potential memory leak on Merge Join when Sort node is not below Materialize node |
Date: | 2022-09-29 14:10:03 |
Message-ID: | 65629.1664460603@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Ronan Dunklau <ronan(dot)dunklau(at)aiven(dot)io> writes:
>> Yeah, I think the same rules around scope apply as
>> tuplesort_gettupleslot() with copy==false. We could do it by adding a
>> copy flag to the existing function, but I'd rather not add the
>> branching to that function. It's probably just better to duplicate it
>> and adjust.
> For the record, I tried to see if gcc would optimize the function by
> generating two different versions when copy is true or false, thus getting rid
> of the branching while still having only one function to deal with.
TBH, I think this is completely ridiculous over-optimization.
There's exactly zero evidence that a second copy of the function
would improve performance, or do anything but contribute to code
bloat (which does have a distributed performance cost).
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2022-09-29 14:13:28 | Re: Add LSN along with offset to error messages reported for WAL file read/write/validate header failures |
Previous Message | Ronan Dunklau | 2022-09-29 13:52:59 | Re: A potential memory leak on Merge Join when Sort node is not below Materialize node |