Re: BUG #17994: Invalidating relcache corrupts tupDesc inside ExecEvalFieldStoreDeForm() - Mailing list pgsql-bugs

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject Re: BUG #17994: Invalidating relcache corrupts tupDesc inside ExecEvalFieldStoreDeForm()
Date
Msg-id 7ae37634-7626-8977-4d89-20603f0d1dcf@dunslane.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: BUG #17994: Invalidating relcache corrupts tupDesc inside ExecEvalFieldStoreDeForm()  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: BUG #17994: Invalidating relcache corrupts tupDesc inside ExecEvalFieldStoreDeForm()  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-bugs


On 2023-06-29 Th 10:26, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
After (not) sleeping on this overnight, and discussing it with a 
colleague this morning, here's a suggestion. We have a hash table, keyed 
by (tdtypeid, attnum) where we store a datumCopy'd version of the value. 
If it's present just return the value instead of getting it from the 
tupdesc. The hash table is blown away at the end of the transaction. 
Assuming that's workable I think it would not be a large patch.
That sounds possibly workable.  


OK, good, we have a plan.


I'm a bit concerned about added
overhead, and about whether the hashtable needs invalidation support.
It might be better to key it off (relfilenode, attnum).


re overhead: getmissingattr isn't called at all except for "off the end" attributes. Setting up the hash table at most once per txn doesn't seem likely to cost much, and even that won't be done if getmissingattr isn't called.

re relfilenode: we don't have it in getmissingattr, so that would involve looking it up or whacking around the API. Neither of those seem good. Do you have any reason for thinking tdtypeid will not be sufficient?

re invalidation: that seems to suggest that the missing value could change under us. I don't think it can, but if it can then more than just this is broken. If not, how would invalidation affect us?


cheers


andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com

pgsql-bugs by date:

Previous
From: Braiam
Date:
Subject: Re: BUG #18007: age(timestamp, timestamp) is marked as immutable, but using age(date, date) says it's not
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: BUG #17994: Invalidating relcache corrupts tupDesc inside ExecEvalFieldStoreDeForm()