| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tender Wang <tndrwang(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Reduce "Var IS [NOT] NULL" quals during constant folding |
| Date: | 2025-04-10 20:07:25 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZUNpgTMhm=Qd9mOkndHMW6=ghgfSgX_ZMq=COiONOcAQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 3:54 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > A related point that I'm noticing is that you record the not-NULL
> > information in the RangeTblEntry.
>
> Did we not just complain about that w.r.t. the v1 version of this
> patch? RangeTblEntry is not where to store this info. We need
> a new data structure, and IMO the data structure should be a hashtable
> based on table OID, not relid. That way we can amortize across
> multiple references to the same table within a query.
It's not quite the same complaint, because the earlier complaint was
that it was actually being done at parse time, and this complaint is
that it is scribbling on a parse-time data structure.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Cramer | 2025-04-10 20:17:06 | Re: Correct documentation for protocol version |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2025-04-10 20:05:48 | Re: Add pg_buffercache_evict_all() and pg_buffercache_mark_dirty[_all]() functions |