Re: Variable length varlena headers redux - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Gregory Stark
Subject Re: Variable length varlena headers redux
Date
Msg-id 87zm7ncm2q.fsf@stark.xeocode.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Variable length varlena headers redux  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:

> Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu> writes:
>> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
>>> I know it is kind of odd to have a data type that is only used on disk,
>>> and not in memory, but I see this as a baby varlena type, used only to
>>> store and get varlena values using less disk space.
>
>> I was leaning toward generating the short varlena headers primarily in
>> heap_form*tuple and just having the datatype specific code generate 4-byte
>> headers much as you describe.
>
> I thought we had a solution for all this, namely to make the short-form
> headers be essentially a TOAST-compressed representation.  The format
> with 4-byte headers is still legal but just not compressed.  Anyone who
> fails to detoast an input argument is already broken, so there's no code
> compatibility hit taken.

It's not just input arguments though. A function could call
DirectFunctionCall* and rightfully expect the return value not to need
detoasting.

I suppose this leads me to *only* generate short headers at heap_form*tuple
time. Then DirectFunctionCall isn't relevant and most of the user code is
perfectly safe.

There could still be cases where a heaptuple is passed around in pl_exec.c or
somewhere but if it's subsequently deformed whoever looks at it hopefully
wouldn't be too surprised for it to be mandatory that they go through
pg_detoast_datum. It'll happen as long as they use the DatumGetFoo macros
anyways.

It does mean that anyone going through a heap_form*tuple/heap_deform*tuple
cycle may generate more copies and memory allocations than they expected.


--  Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Re-ordering of OR conditions
Next
From: "Pavel Stehule"
Date:
Subject: Re: Proposal: TABLE functions