Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] plpgsql, return can contains any expression
Pavel Stehule wrote: > >OK, where are we on this patch? > > without changes. This task have to do anybody who better know PostgreSQL > cache system than me. How about you submit a version without any caching, but which works correctly; and we worry about optimizations later? I can update and send simple version. Regards Pavel Stehule _ Najdete si svou lasku a nove pratele na Match.com. http://www.msn.cz/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] plpgsql, return can contains any expression
Pavel Stehule wrote: > >OK, where are we on this patch? > > without changes. This task have to do anybody who better know PostgreSQL > cache system than me. How about you submit a version without any caching, but which works correctly; and we worry about optimizations later? > >--- > > > >Pavel Stehule wrote: > >> > >> > >> > > >> >"Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > >> This patch doesn't seem to cope with cases where the supplied tuple > >has > >> > >> the wrong number of columns, and it doesn't look like it's being > >> >careful > >> > >> about dropped columns either. Also, that's a mighty > >bizarre-looking > >> > >> choice of cache memory context in coerce_to_tuple ... but then > >again, > >> > >> why are you bothering with a cache at all for temporary arrays? > >> > > >> > > I am sorry, Tom. But I don't understand. I can check number of > >columns, > >> > > ofcourse and I'll do it. What cache for temporary arrays do you > >mean? > >> > > >> >I thought that making coerce_to_tuple depend on estate->err_func was > >> >pretty bizarre, and that there was no need for any "cache" at all for > >> >arrays that need only live as long as the function runs. All you are > >> >saving here is a palloc/pfree cycle, which is not worth the > >obscurantism > >> >and risk of bugs (are you sure natts can never change?). > >> > >> No, cache there is ugly. But I don't have idea about more efective > >> implementation of it :-(. First version of this patch was more clean. > >and > >> little bit slow. This cache save 10%. > >> > >> > > >> >BTW, if you want this patch to make it into 8.2, it needs to be fixed > >> >and resubmitted *very* soon. > >> > >> I understand, but I am not able work on it in next four days. And I need > >> help with it from Neil. It will be for 8.3. -- Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] plpgsql, return can contains any expression
OK, where are we on this patch? without changes. This task have to do anybody who better know PostgreSQL cache system than me. Regards Pavel --- Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > > > >"Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> This patch doesn't seem to cope with cases where the supplied tuple has > > >> the wrong number of columns, and it doesn't look like it's being > >careful > > >> about dropped columns either. Also, that's a mighty bizarre-looking > > >> choice of cache memory context in coerce_to_tuple ... but then again, > > >> why are you bothering with a cache at all for temporary arrays? > > > > > I am sorry, Tom. But I don't understand. I can check number of columns, > > > ofcourse and I'll do it. What cache for temporary arrays do you mean? > > > >I thought that making coerce_to_tuple depend on estate->err_func was > >pretty bizarre, and that there was no need for any "cache" at all for > >arrays that need only live as long as the function runs. All you are > >saving here is a palloc/pfree cycle, which is not worth the obscurantism > >and risk of bugs (are you sure natts can never change?). > > No, cache there is ugly. But I don't have idea about more efective > implementation of it :-(. First version of this patch was more clean. and > little bit slow. This cache save 10%. > > > > >BTW, if you want this patch to make it into 8.2, it needs to be fixed > >and resubmitted *very* soon. > > I understand, but I am not able work on it in next four days. And I need > help with it from Neil. It will be for 8.3. > > Thank you > Pavel > > _ > Emotikony a pozadi programu MSN Messenger ozivi vasi konverzaci. > http://messenger.msn.cz/ > > > ---(end of broadcast)--- > TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate _ Najdete si svou lasku a nove pratele na Match.com. http://www.msn.cz/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] plpgsql, return can contains any expression
OK, where are we on this patch? --- Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > > > >"Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> This patch doesn't seem to cope with cases where the supplied tuple has > > >> the wrong number of columns, and it doesn't look like it's being > >careful > > >> about dropped columns either. Also, that's a mighty bizarre-looking > > >> choice of cache memory context in coerce_to_tuple ... but then again, > > >> why are you bothering with a cache at all for temporary arrays? > > > > > I am sorry, Tom. But I don't understand. I can check number of columns, > > > ofcourse and I'll do it. What cache for temporary arrays do you mean? > > > >I thought that making coerce_to_tuple depend on estate->err_func was > >pretty bizarre, and that there was no need for any "cache" at all for > >arrays that need only live as long as the function runs. All you are > >saving here is a palloc/pfree cycle, which is not worth the obscurantism > >and risk of bugs (are you sure natts can never change?). > > No, cache there is ugly. But I don't have idea about more efective > implementation of it :-(. First version of this patch was more clean. and > little bit slow. This cache save 10%. > > > > >BTW, if you want this patch to make it into 8.2, it needs to be fixed > >and resubmitted *very* soon. > > I understand, but I am not able work on it in next four days. And I need > help with it from Neil. It will be for 8.3. > > Thank you > Pavel > > _ > Emotikony a pozadi programu MSN Messenger ozivi vasi konverzaci. > http://messenger.msn.cz/ > > > ---(end of broadcast)--- > TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] plpgsql, return can contains any expression
"Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> This patch doesn't seem to cope with cases where the supplied tuple has >> the wrong number of columns, and it doesn't look like it's being careful >> about dropped columns either. Also, that's a mighty bizarre-looking >> choice of cache memory context in coerce_to_tuple ... but then again, >> why are you bothering with a cache at all for temporary arrays? > I am sorry, Tom. But I don't understand. I can check number of columns, > ofcourse and I'll do it. What cache for temporary arrays do you mean? I thought that making coerce_to_tuple depend on estate->err_func was pretty bizarre, and that there was no need for any "cache" at all for arrays that need only live as long as the function runs. All you are saving here is a palloc/pfree cycle, which is not worth the obscurantism and risk of bugs (are you sure natts can never change?). No, cache there is ugly. But I don't have idea about more efective implementation of it :-(. First version of this patch was more clean. and little bit slow. This cache save 10%. BTW, if you want this patch to make it into 8.2, it needs to be fixed and resubmitted *very* soon. I understand, but I am not able work on it in next four days. And I need help with it from Neil. It will be for 8.3. Thank you Pavel _ Emotikony a pozadi programu MSN Messenger ozivi vasi konverzaci. http://messenger.msn.cz/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] plpgsql, return can contains any expression
"Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> This patch doesn't seem to cope with cases where the supplied tuple has >> the wrong number of columns, and it doesn't look like it's being careful >> about dropped columns either. Also, that's a mighty bizarre-looking >> choice of cache memory context in coerce_to_tuple ... but then again, >> why are you bothering with a cache at all for temporary arrays? > I am sorry, Tom. But I don't understand. I can check number of columns, > ofcourse and I'll do it. What cache for temporary arrays do you mean? I thought that making coerce_to_tuple depend on estate->err_func was pretty bizarre, and that there was no need for any "cache" at all for arrays that need only live as long as the function runs. All you are saving here is a palloc/pfree cycle, which is not worth the obscurantism and risk of bugs (are you sure natts can never change?). BTW, if you want this patch to make it into 8.2, it needs to be fixed and resubmitted *very* soon. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] plpgsql, return can contains any expression
"Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This patch allows using any row expression in return statement and does > transformation from untyped row to composite types if it's necessary. This patch doesn't seem to cope with cases where the supplied tuple has the wrong number of columns, and it doesn't look like it's being careful about dropped columns either. Also, that's a mighty bizarre-looking choice of cache memory context in coerce_to_tuple ... but then again, why are you bothering with a cache at all for temporary arrays? I am sorry, Tom. But I don't understand. I can check number of columns, ofcourse and I'll do it. What cache for temporary arrays do you mean? Best regards Pavel Stehule _ Emotikony a pozadi programu MSN Messenger ozivi vasi konverzaci. http://messenger.msn.cz/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] plpgsql, return can contains any expression
"Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This patch allows using any row expression in return statement and does > transformation from untyped row to composite types if it's necessary. This patch doesn't seem to cope with cases where the supplied tuple has the wrong number of columns, and it doesn't look like it's being careful about dropped columns either. Also, that's a mighty bizarre-looking choice of cache memory context in coerce_to_tuple ... but then again, why are you bothering with a cache at all for temporary arrays? regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
