On 2019-Apr-01, Tom Lane wrote:
> Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr> writes:
> >> I was wondering about that too. It seems like it'd be a wise idea to
> >> further constrain s and/or n to ensure that the s > 1 code path doesn't do
> >> anything too awful ...
>
> > Yep. The attached version enforces s >= 1.001, which avoids the worse cost
> > of iterating, according to my small tests.
>
> Seems reasonable. Pushed with minor documentation editing.
Ah, so we now we can get rid of the TState * being passed around
separately for expression execution, too?
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
