pg.ddx.io pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive help / color / mirror / Atom feed From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Jesper Pedersen <jesper.pedersen@redhat.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: POC: converting Lists into arrays
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 10:50:20 -0400
Message-ID: <25111.1563807020@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw )
In-Reply-To: <CAKJS1f8dYW=RWoTGQx10Mgbe4dgO1L+kvXs4rFtrjgLsufMfAw@mail.gmail.com >
References: <481.1551390571@sss.pgh.pa.us >
<24783.1551568303@sss.pgh.pa.us >
<20190303043424.itzy3ge52xrkpmpr@alap3.anarazel.de >
<437.1551637744@sss.pgh.pa.us >
<CA+TgmoZM4c=v0ifR++i09JFtNtnqTq_HkFmbFjwWqbUJffOLmA@mail.gmail.com >
<12684.1551723095@sss.pgh.pa.us >
<20190304190612.vgqqsowzkrh22623@alap3.anarazel.de >
<26464.1551734920@sss.pgh.pa.us >
<20190304221101.hdg4vj5fo4eewh3b@alap3.anarazel.de >
<CAKJS1f-pNfoUJrmU8vgD1WrKLqs9WxOVLQ0RpSWu9h6W9RnypA@mail.gmail.com >
<20190304235402.nod3gbotk2qtd4nh@alap3.anarazel.de >
<CAKJS1f-yS201hAAmnxcLb2aeTYNZ_A9R1JNXF6hTVXjhHYN7rQ@mail.gmail.com >
<1131.1551746172@sss.pgh.pa.us >
<14626.1558745627@sss.pgh.pa.us >
<29297.1558799327@sss.pgh.pa.us >
<f078ce63-9e04-0f3e-d200-d7ee66279abe@redhat.com >
<25178.1562006685@sss.pgh.pa.us >
<25258.1562023641@sss.pgh.pa.us >
<CAKJS1f9RUaLrujzpqf15gg_7Wo9-ai7b3-MR=bMH7a-pOWdeZA@mail.gmail.com >
<2305.1562181615@sss.pgh.pa.us >
<10784.1563303142@sss.pgh.pa.us >
<6704.1563739305@sss.pgh.pa.us >
<CAKJS1f8dYW=RWoTGQx1! 0Mgbe4dgO1L+kvXs4rFtrjgLsufMfAw@mail.gmail.com >
David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.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
view thread (130+ messages) latest in thread
Message-ID: <25111.1563807020@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Permalink: ../25111.1563807020@sss.pgh.pa.us/
Also on: postgresql.org/message-id/25111.1563807020@sss.pgh.pa.us
copy link · copy postgr.es
reply Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com, jesper.pedersen@redhat.com, andres@anarazel.de, robertmhaas@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: POC: converting Lists into arrays
In-Reply-To: <25111.1563807020@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox