Re: Missing CFI in hlCover()?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Missing CFI in hlCover()?
Date: 2020-07-30 21:42:19
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
>> Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
>>> * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
>>>> We could hard-code a rule like that, or we could introduce a new
>>>> explicit parameter for the maximum cover length. The latter would be
>>>> more flexible, but we need something back-patchable and I'm concerned
>>>> about the compatibility hazards of adding a new parameter in minor
>>>> releases. So on the whole I propose hard-wiring a multiplier of,
>>>> say, 10 for both these cases.

>>> That sounds alright to me, though I do think we should probably still
>>> toss a CFI (or two) in this path somewhere as we don't know how long
>>> some of these functions might take...

>> Yeah, of course. I'm still leaning to doing that in TS_execute_recurse.

> Works for me.

Here's a proposed patch along that line.

regards, tom lane

Attachment Content-Type Size
fix-slow-ts_headline.patch text/x-diff 4.5 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Daniel Gustafsson 2020-07-30 21:47:23 Re: psql - improve test coverage from 41% to 88%
Previous Message Daniel Gustafsson 2020-07-30 21:42:16 Re: OpenSSL randomness seeding