Re: Performance of aggregates over set-returning functions - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Performance of aggregates over set-returning functions
Date
Msg-id 18716.1204826008@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Performance of aggregates over set-returning functions  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
Responses Re: Performance of aggregates over set-returning functions  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
List pgsql-performance
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> This this a bug or TODO item?

TODO, I think.  I wouldn't want to risk pushing a change in this into
back branches.

            regards, tom lane

>> I'm not sure why it's like this.  Some digging in the CVS history shows
>> that indeed the code used to be in the other order, and I switched it
>> (and added the second comment block) in this old commit:
>>
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2000-08/msg00218.php
>>
>> I suppose that the SQL-function support at the time required that its
>> calling memory context be persistent until it returned ExprEndResult,
>> but I sure don't recall any details.  It's entirely possible that that
>> requirement no longer exists, or could easily be eliminated given all
>> the other changes that have happened since then.  nodeFunctionscan.c
>> seems to reset the current context for each call of a SRF, so I'd think
>> that anything that can't cope with that should have been flushed out
>> by now.
>>
>> If you feel like poking at this, I *strongly* recommend doing your
>> testing in an --enable-cassert build.  You'll have no idea whether you
>> freed stuff too early if you don't have CLOBBER_FREED_MEMORY enabled.

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: count * performance issue
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Performance of aggregates over set-returning functions