Message-ID: <77cc23dd-ac53-4bb9-9e90-0019c9ff58df@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2026 09:02:10 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Reduce build times of pg_trgm GIN indexes
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
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>
 <8f3fab0e-02e1-4948-9683-224fe54e30ae@iki.fi>
Content-Language: en-US
From: David Geier <geidav.pg@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <8f3fab0e-02e1-4948-9683-224fe54e30ae@iki.fi>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/77cc23dd-ac53-4bb9-9e90-0019c9ff58df%40gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

> I didn't do it for performance, but because I find the function easier
> to read that way. We could change it back.
> 
> It's a pretty scary thought that a compiler might misoptimize that
> though. In the same function we have 'nullFlags', too, as a local
> variable, even before this commit. Not sure why Coverity doesn't
> complain about that.
> 
>> /*
>>  * PointerGetDatum
>>  *        Returns datum representation for a pointer.
>>  */
>> static inline Datum
>> PointerGetDatum(const void *X)
>> {
>>     return (Datum) (uintptr_t) X;
>> }
> 
> Hmm, is that 'const' incorrect? This function doesn't modify *X, but the
> resulting address will be used to modify it. Maybe changing it to non-
> const "void *X" would give Coverity a hint.

Ah, that could be it.
Is there a way for me to run Coverity on a patch to test that out?

Which Coverity CI do we actually use? Is it this one here [1]?

[1] https://scan.coverity.com/projects/209?

--
David Geier