| From: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Anton A(dot) Melnikov" <a(dot)melnikov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [BUG] Excessive memory usage with update on STORED generated columns. |
| Date: | 2026-03-30 18:50:37 |
| Message-ID: | CAEze2WhsfFwfjooci5gqpSvq_1ibJHnJZ29c58GbDJWH9nbYkA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 at 20:35, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> So I think the correct fix is that there needs to be a separate
> boolean tracking whether this work has been done, akin to
> ExecGetExtraUpdatedCols's use of ri_extraUpdatedCols_valid.
Why would it need a new boolean? ri_extraUpdatedCols_valid tracks
exactly whether we've already gone through ExecInitGenerated(...,
CMD_UPDATE), and in doing so if both ri_extraUpdatedCols,
ri_GeneratedExprsU, and ri_NumGeneratedNeededU are valid or whether
they still need to be populated. Adding a new boolean would therefore
be rather duplicative.
See also the patch of a few hours ago at [0].
Kind regards,
Matthias van de Meent
Databricks (https://www.databricks.com)
[0] https://postgr.es/m/CAEze2Wh%2B_C8LtmiMRb58df%3DA1PrBVmMnYMOfbBUk9c%3Dm99CN%2Bw%40mail.gmail.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2026-03-30 18:52:54 | Re: [PATCH] Add support for INSERT ... SET syntax |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2026-03-30 18:35:03 | Re: [BUG] Excessive memory usage with update on STORED generated columns. |