On 6/2/2024 13:51, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 5:22 AM Ashutosh Bapat
> <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> That looks pretty small considering the benefits. What do you think?
>>>
>>> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAExHW5stmOUobE55pMt83r8UxvfCph+Pvo5dNpdrVCsBgXEzDQ@mail.gmail.com
>>
>> If you want to experiment, please use attached patches. There's a fix
>> for segfault during initdb in them. The patches are still raw.
>
> First patch is no longer required. Here's rebased set
>
> The patches are raw. make check has some crashes that I need to fix. I
> am waiting to hear whether this is useful and whether the design is on
> the right track.
I think this work is promising, especially in the scope of partitioning.
I've analysed how it works by basing these patches on the current
master. You propose freeing unused paths after the end of the standard
path search.
In my view, upper paths generally consume less memory than join and scan
paths. This is primarily due to the limited options provided by Postgres
so far.
At the same time, this technique (while highly useful in general) adds
fragility and increases complexity: a developer needs to remember to
link the path using the pointer in different places of the code.
So, maybe go the alternative way? Invent a subquery memory context and
store all the path allocations there. It can be freed after setrefs
finishes this subquery planning without pulling up this subquery.
--
regards, Andrei Lepikhov
