From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Pinning a buffer in TupleTableSlot is unnecessary |
Date: | 2016-11-12 15:28:38 |
Message-ID: | 20161112152838.tcd3rdctirfzjbge@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-08-30 07:38:10 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> writes:
> > While profiling some queries and looking at executor overhead, I
> > realized that we're not making much use of TupleTableSlot's ability to
> > hold a buffer pin. In a SeqScan, the buffer is held pinned by the
> > underlying heap-scan anyway. Same with an IndexScan, and the SampleScan.
>
> I think this is probably wrong, or at least very dangerous to remove.
> The reason for the feature is that the slot may continue to point at
> the tuple after the scan has moved on.
FWIW, that's not safe to assume in upper layers *anyway*. If you want to
do that, the slot has to be materialized, and that'd make a local
copy. If you don't materialize tts_values/isnull can point into random
old memory (common e.g. for projections and virtual tuples in general).
Andres
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2016-11-12 15:38:30 | Re: move collation import to backend |
Previous Message | Dilip Kumar | 2016-11-12 15:17:37 | Re: pg_dump, pg_dumpall and data durability |