Re: calling procedures is slow and consumes extra much memory against calling function

st 17. 6. 2020 v 7:52 odesílatel Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>
napsal:

> On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 17:12, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > st 10. 6. 2020 v 12:26 odesílatel Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>
> napsal:
> >> Could you show an example testcase that tests this recursive scenario,
> >> with which your earlier patch fails the test, and this v2 patch passes
> >> it ? I am trying to understand the recursive scenario and the re-use
> >> of expr->plan.
> >
> >
> > it hangs on plpgsql tests. So you can apply first version of patch
> >
> > and "make check"
>
> I could not reproduce the make check hang with the v1 patch. But I
> could see a crash with the below testcase. So I understand the purpose
> of the plan_owner variable that you introduced in v2.
>
> Consider this recursive test :
>
> create or replace procedure p1(in r int) as $$
> begin
> RAISE INFO 'r : % ', r;
> if r < 3 then
> call p1(r+1);
> end if;
> end
> $$ language plpgsql;
>
> do $$
> declare r int default 1;
> begin
> call p1(r);
> end;
> $$;
>
> In p1() with r=2, when the stmt "call p1(r+1)" is being executed,
> consider this code of exec_stmt_call() with your v2 patch applied:
> if (expr->plan && !expr->plan->saved)
> {
> if (plan_owner)
> SPI_freeplan(expr->plan);
> expr->plan = NULL;
> }
>
> Here, plan_owner is false. So SPI_freeplan() will not be called, and
> expr->plan is set to NULL. Now I have observed that the stmt pointer
> and expr pointer is shared between the p1() execution at this r=2
> level and the p1() execution at r=1 level. So after the above code is
> executed at r=2, when the upper level (r=1) exec_stmt_call() lands to
> the same above code snippet, it gets the same expr pointer, but it's
> expr->plan is already set to NULL without being freed. From this
> logic, it looks like the plan won't get freed whenever the expr/stmt
> pointers are shared across recursive levels, since expr->plan is set
> to NULL at the lowermost level ? Basically, the handle to the plan is
> lost so no one at the upper recursion level can explicitly free it
> using SPI_freeplan(), right ? This looks the same as the main issue
> where the plan does not get freed for non-recursive calls. I haven't
> got a chance to check if we can develop a testcase for this, similar
> to your testcase where the memory keeps on increasing.
>

This is a good consideration.

I am sending updated patch

Pavel

> -Amit
>