From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: | 2023-10-01 18:41:53 |
Message-ID: | 89f8c603-3049-91ad-a703-716401004ef1@eisentraut.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Is this patch still being worked on?
On 07.03.23 01:51, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
>> On 2023-03-03 15:09:18 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> It'd be good to have a header comment for ExecInitExprRec documenting
>>> the arguments, particularly that resv/resnull are where to put the
>>> subplan's eventual result.
>
>> Did you mean ExecInitSubPlanExpr()?
>
> Right, copy-and-pasteo, sorry.
>
>>> You could avoid having to assume ExprState's resvalue/resnull being
>>> safe to use by instead using the target resv/resnull. This would
>>> require putting those into the EEOP_PARAM_SET step so that
>>> ExecEvalParamSet knows where to fetch from, so maybe it's not an
>>> improvement, but perhaps worth considering.
>
>> I think that'd be a bit worse - we'd have more pointers that can't be handled
>> in a generic way in JIT.
>
> OK.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2023-10-01 18:43:21 | Re: False "pg_serial": apparent wraparound” in logs |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2023-10-01 17:24:01 | Re: Fix receiving large legal tsvector from binary format |