Message-ID: <035bfc05-d6ea-b746-ce80-a533b41a0d55@dunslane.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2022 14:27:36 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.5.0
Subject: Re: PG 15 (and to a smaller degree 14) regression due to ExprEvalStep
 size
Content-Language: en-US
To: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>,
 David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>,
 Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
 John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com>,
 "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
 Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>,
 PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
 Nikita Glukhov <n.gluhov@postgrespro.ru>
References: 
 <CA+HiwqHS3LSmWpjdCfq2cdB2W--=0ETHmQPF8bXCY2Mn=bXBog@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220721171235.7okm3q5i7jyuwtqw@alvherre.pgsql>
 <CA+HiwqENocTzGwbzdLrc7CwTW4qivkFRhSvWKi7Ph77s=85aTg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAApHDvr_DPoAfe2jAyP5rd=h+Z0-WZxeEB025=Fvw7JRbeWDOA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+HiwqFyNvVYSegZw5pWTSAi1EtZLBtAexP2APqgOOcGLn_31g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+HiwqEp=vF=0=tUPYz2N3OOp+19CgCrNBgLUUK7SWec_YZ5UQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+HiwqEp=vF=0=tUPYz2N3OOp+19CgCrNBgLUUK7SWec_YZ5UQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/035bfc05-d6ea-b746-ce80-a533b41a0d55%40dunslane.net>
Precedence: bulk


On 2022-07-27 We 04:01, Amit Langote wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 2:49 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 1:13 PM David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> BTW, I was working on code inside llvm_compile_expr() a few days ago
>>> and I thought I'd gotten the new evaluation steps I was adding correct
>>> as it worked fine with jit_above_cost=0, but on further testing, it
>>> crashed with jit_inline_above_cost=0. Might be worth doing both to see
>>> if everything works as intended.
>> Thanks for the pointer.
>>
>> So I didn't see things going bust on re-testing with all
>> jit_*_above_cost parameters set to 0, so maybe the
>> llvm_compile_expression() additions are alright.
> Here's an updated version of the patch, with mostly cosmetic changes.
> In particular, I added comments describing the new llvm_compile_expr()
> blobs.
>


Andres,


this work has been done in response to a complaint from you. Does this
address your concerns satisfactorily?


cheers


andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com