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>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: WIP: Faster Expression Processing v4 |
Date: | 2017-03-20 04:16:21 |
Message-ID: | 20170320041621.p6apymrhyfd7tqgs@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2017-03-19 23:55:50 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > I've been pondering if we can't entirely get rid of CaseTest etc, the
> > amount of hackery required seems not like a good thing. One way I'd
> > prototyped was to replace them with PARAM_EXEC nodes - then the whole
> > issue of them potentially having different values at different parts of
> > an expression vanishes because the aliasing is removed.
>
> Yes, replacing all of that with Param slots had occurred to me too.
> We might want to keep the special parse node types for convenience in
> reverse-listing, but having them act just like PARAM_EXEC for execution
> purposes seems promising.
As long as that special parse-time node is part of the same value
numbering, that makes sense (could just name make it a subtype of param
ala PARAM_CASE). I don't think we actually do anything useful in
ruleutils etc with either CaseTest or CoerceToDomainValue.
- Andres
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2017-03-20 05:38:18 | Re: [PATCH] Transaction traceability - txid_status(bigint) |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2017-03-20 04:01:58 | Re: pageinspect and hash indexes |