From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: POC: converting Lists into arrays |
Date: | 2019-07-22 14:50:20 |
Message-ID: | 25111.1563807020@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> I looked over this and only noted down one thing:
> In estimate_path_cost_size, can you explain why list_concat_copy() is
> needed here? I don't see remote_param_join_conds being used after
> this, so might it be better to just get rid of remote_param_join_conds
> and pass remote_conds to classifyConditions(), then just
> list_concat()?
Hm, you're right, remote_param_join_conds is not used after that,
so we could just drop the existing list_copy() and make it
remote_conds = list_concat(remote_param_join_conds,
fpinfo->remote_conds);
I'm disinclined to change the API of classifyConditions(),
if that's what you were suggesting.
>> It turns out there are a *lot* of places where list_concat() callers
>> are now leaking the second input list (where before they just leaked
>> that list's header). So I've got mixed emotions about the choice not
>> to add a variant function that list_free's the second input.
> In some of these places, for example, the calls to
> generate_join_implied_equalities_normal() and
> generate_join_implied_equalities_broken(), I wonder, since these are
> static functions if we could just change the function signature to
> accept a List to append to.
I'm pretty disinclined to do that, too. Complicating function APIs
for marginal performance gains isn't something that leads to
understandable or maintainable code.
> If we do end up with another function, it might be nice to stay away
> from using "concat" in the name. I think we might struggle if there
> are too many variations on concat and there's a risk we'll use the
> wrong one. If we need this then perhaps something like
> list_append_all() might be a better choice... I'm struggling to build
> a strong opinion on this though. (I know that because I've deleted
> this paragraph 3 times and started again, each time with a different
> opinion.)
Yeah, the name is really the sticking point here; if we could think
of a name that was easy to understand then the whole thing would be
much easier to accept. The best I've been able to come up with is
"list_join", by analogy to bms_join for bitmapsets ... but that's
not great.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Khandekar | 2019-07-22 15:08:32 | Re: POC: Cleaning up orphaned files using undo logs |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-07-22 14:11:09 | Re: initdb recommendations |