Re: Caching for stable expressions with constant arguments v6

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Caching for stable expressions with constant arguments v6
Date: 2012-08-27 14:52:51
Message-ID: 20120827145251.GI11088@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 05:44:32PM +0300, Marti Raudsepp wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> > Where are we on this?
>
> TL;DR: Got a review, requires substantial work, current github branch
> is slightly broken, will get back to this soon.
>
> Tom Lane sent a thorough review of the patch here:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2012-03/msg00655.php
> (very much appreciated!)
>
> I have addressed some smaller points from that list in my github
> branch, but it still requires a substantial amount of work (in
> particular, the bulk of this patch which is the recursion logic in
> eval_const_expressions_mutator, needs to be changed to prevent
> unnecessary CacheExpr insertions and to store intermediate state in
> the context struct).
>
> I got a small fragment of this into PostgreSQL 9.2 as commit
> 81a646febe87964725647a36d839f6b4b405f3ae. I rebased my github branch
> on top of this commit, but the rebase introduced some test failures
> that I have not tracked down yet. I don't know if it applies to git
> HEAD any more.
>
> Sadly some other things intervened and I have not had the time to
> return to hacking on this patch. But I am hopeful I can get it into
> shape during the 9.3 cycle.

OK, thanks for the update, and your work on this.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2012-08-27 15:07:55 Re: [GENERAL] Why extract( ... from timestamp ) is not immutable?
Previous Message Kasahara Tatsuhito 2012-08-27 14:47:28 Re: A caveat of partitioning tables in the document