Message-ID: <27e8142d-19da-48a8-8eac-7b2e117dc463@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2026 17:22:10 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Reduce build times of pg_trgm GIN indexes
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
Cc: Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com>,
 pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
References: <5d366878-2007-4d31-861e-19294b7a583b@gmail.com>
 <9ac3931a-180e-4283-a7a8-05eb66099206@iki.fi>
 <e5dd01c6-c469-405d-aea2-feca0b2dc34d@gmail.com>
 <2e11134f-02c3-43da-8c39-fb520a1a251d@iki.fi>
 <66620ec7-0f81-4813-9cf1-b901a56efcc3@gmail.com>
 <CAEze2WiUL9idZBbuUN+MuWqr6DcPr_-C91E9MTx=H62Xx5fHaQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ef8782c9-68b7-4915-9f79-497765a8e205@gmail.com>
 <a90ebbbd-0d77-49c7-b222-3dbffa4e3b14@gmail.com>
 <2a76b5ef-4b12-4023-93a1-eed6e64968f3@gmail.com>
 <6439c655-e281-409d-b884-6586750d5820@iki.fi>
 <342012.1776017102@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Language: en-US
From: David Geier <geidav.pg@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <342012.1776017102@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/27e8142d-19da-48a8-8eac-7b2e117dc463%40gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On 12.04.2026 20:05, Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> writes:
>> Pushed 0001 as commit 6f5ad00ab7.
> 
> This commit has caused Coverity to start complaining that
> most of ginExtractEntries() is unreachable:
> 
> *** CID 1691468:         Control flow issues  (DEADCODE)
> /srv/coverity/git/pgsql-git/postgresql/src/backend/access/gin/ginutil.c: 495             in ginExtractEntries()
> 489     	/*
> 490     	 * Scan the items for any NULLs.  All NULLs are considered equal, so we
> 491     	 * just need to check and remember if there are any.  We remove them from
> 492     	 * the array here, and after deduplication, put back one NULL entry to
> 493     	 * represent them all.
> 494     	 */
>>>>     CID 1691468:         Control flow issues  (DEADCODE)
>>>>     Execution cannot reach this statement: "hasNull = false;".
> 495     	hasNull = false;
> 496     	if (nullFlags)
> 497     	{
> 498     		int32		numNonNulls = 0;
> 499     
> 500     		for (int32 i = 0; i < nentries; i++)
> 
> Evidently, it does not realize that the extractValueFn() can change
> nentries from its initial value of zero.  I wouldn't be too surprised
> if that's related to our casting of the pointer to uintptr_t --- that
> may cause it to not see the passed pointer as a potential reference
> mechanism.

Curious that we don't see that more frequently for other functions that
have output arguments. But maybe there are just too few?

> I would just write that off as Coverity not being smart enough, except
> that I'm worried that some compiler might make a similar deduction and
> break the function completely.  Was the switch to a local variable
> for nentries really a useful win performance-wise?

I haven't benchmarked the variant with using the pointer directly. I can
do that.

--
David Geier