From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Evaluate arguments of correlated SubPlans in the referencing
 ExprState
In-reply-to: <20230302200549.l2ikytmnqzvy5a7a@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: <20230225214401.346ancgjqc3zmvek@awork3.anarazel.de>
 <2129737.1677785615@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20230302200549.l2ikytmnqzvy5a7a@alap3.anarazel.de>
Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
	message dated "Thu, 02 Mar 2023 12:05:49 -0800"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <2134060.1677787831.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2023 15:10:31 -0500
Message-ID: <2134061.1677787831@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2134061.1677787831%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2023-03-02 14:33:35 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I looked through this, and there is one point that is making me really
>> uncomfortable.  This bit is assuming that we can bind the address of
>> the es_param_exec_vals array right into the compiled expression:

> Yea, I wasn't super comfortable with that either. I concluded it's ok
> because we already cache pointers to the array inside each ExprContext.

ExprContext, sure, but compiled expressions?  Considering what it
costs to JIT those, I think we ought to be trying to make them
fairly long-lived.

			regards, tom lane