Re: Row pattern recognition

From: Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>
To: assam258(at)gmail(dot)com
Cc: jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com, sjjang112233(at)gmail(dot)com, vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org, er(at)xs4all(dot)nl, jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com, david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com, peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org, li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com
Subject: Re: Row pattern recognition
Date: 2026-07-02 00:48:13
Message-ID: 20260702.094813.2267011850936872788.ishii@postgresql.org
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi Henson,

> Hi Tatsuo,
>
> Thanks for the review. I agree with the direction -- the (void) is
> confusing. I did try your exact suggestion and the regression tests pass
> unchanged, but I would keep one guard, for the following reason.
>
>> Is there any reason that we call row_is_in_reduced_frame() here,
>> instead of something like:
>>
>> update_frameheadpos(winstate);
>> update_reduced_frame(winobj, pos);
>
> row_is_in_reduced_frame() guards the update:
>
> state = get_reduced_frame_status(winstate, pos);
> if (state == RF_NOT_DETERMINED)
> {
> update_frameheadpos(winstate);
> update_reduced_frame(winobj, pos);
> }
>
> Calling update_reduced_frame() unconditionally drops that guard. When
> currentpos is already determined -- e.g. an interior row of a previous
> match under AFTER MATCH SKIP PAST LAST ROW (RF_SKIPPED) -- it takes an
> O(1) early return and overwrites the shared rpr_match_* record, silently
> reclassifying a SKIPPED row as UNMATCHED.
>
> This is not observable today -- I confirmed with a guarded-vs-unguarded
> differential (patterns, both skip modes, various aggregates: identical
> output), because both paths end up with an empty reduced frame. But it
> does change the state semantics and leans on that convergence, so I would
> rather keep the guard. Two ways, both of which remove the (void):

Thanks for the explanation. That makese sense.

> A) Keep the guard inline at the call site.
>
> B) Factor it into a small helper shared by the nav-driving call site
> and row_is_in_reduced_frame():
>
> static void
> ensure_reduced_frame(WindowObject winobj, int64 pos)
> {
> WindowAggState *winstate = winobj->winstate;
>
> if (get_reduced_frame_status(winstate, pos) ==
> RF_NOT_DETERMINED)
> {
> update_frameheadpos(winstate);
> update_reduced_frame(winobj, pos);
> }
> }
>
> I lean towards B (no duplicated guard, and the name states the intent),
> but A is the smaller diff. Which do you prefer?

I like B too.

Regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS K.K.
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en/
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message surya poondla 2026-07-02 00:55:08 Re: [DESIGN] Soft DROP TABLE, recoverable drops for PostgreSQL
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2026-07-02 00:37:43 Re: Add pg_stat_kind_info system view