| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: patch: fix performance problems with repated decomprimation of varlena values in plpgsql |
| Date: | 2011-02-06 13:15:30 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTikEWWaz_+5Ym-OMMLRVnymCzP=UXBeDpFQsKw3P@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 5:52 AM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> 1. Add PLpgSQL_var.should_be_detoasted; check it in plpgsql_param_fetch().
> Essentially Pavel's original patch, only with the check logic moved up from
> exec_eval_datum() to plpgsql_param_fetch() to avoid bothering a couple other
> callers that would not benefit. Tom and Robert objected to the new bookkeeping.
I don't understand why it's necessary. It seems to me that the case
we're concerned about is when someone is referencing a variable that
is toasted which they might later want to reference again. We're
going to have to notice that the value is toasted and detoast it
anyway before we can really do anything with it. So why can't we
arrange to overwrite the *source* of the data we're fetching with the
detoasted version?
I know this is probably a stupid question, but i don't understand the
code well enough to see why this can't work.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Noah Misch | 2011-02-06 13:40:44 | Re: ALTER TYPE 2: skip already-provable no-work rewrites |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-02-06 12:54:52 | Re: ALTER TYPE 2: skip already-provable no-work rewrites |