Re: Inlining functions with "expensive" parameters - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Inlining functions with "expensive" parameters
Date
Msg-id 6480.1510861492@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Inlining functions with "expensive" parameters  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: Inlining functions with "expensive" parameters  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Re: Inlining functions with "expensive" parameters  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> Well, it's not a question of cost of the function now? Imagine
>     SELECT inlineable(something());
> if you have 10 references for the parameter inside inlineable(). Then
> currently something() would be evaluated 10 times. Which'd quite
> possibly be bad.

Right.  I kind of thought we only worried about that if the parameter
was referenced more than once, but I might be wrong.

> But what I *am* wondering about, is why we're not handling the
> parameters in a different way. Instead of replacing the all parameter
> references with the parameter, it shouldn't be too hard to instead
> replace them with a new PARAM_EXEC like Param.

Yeah, there's no mechanism like that now, but there could be.  I wonder
if we could connect that to the work that was being done for caching
nonvolatile subexpressions --- it feels like much the same problem.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Issues with logical replication
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Inlining functions with "expensive" parameters