On 11.12.2025 06:33, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2025 at 08:01:49AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> I still need to get through the remaining dubious changes you have
>> posted, including the llvm one that was wrong. It seems like some of
>> these things warrant a backpatch.
>
> I have been looking at the rest of these changes with some -O2, and I
> have been puzzled by the differences in hstore_gin.c and hstore_op.c.
> In all these cases we generate more instructions with the patch than
> without the patch. Anyway, I assume that these are the ones that
> matter:
> entries = (Datum *) palloc(sizeof(Datum) * 2 * count);
> out_datums = palloc_array(Datum, count * 2);
Yeah, in a few cases the different bracketing has some surprisingly big
influence on the generated assmebly.
> pg_trgm.c was less puzzling. For example:
> - trg1 = (trgm *) palloc(sizeof(trgm) * (slen1 / 2 + 1) * 3);
> + trg1 = palloc_array(trgm, (slen1 / 2 + 1) * 3);
> This one leads to something like that before vs after:
> < 1418: 83 c0 01 add eax,0x1
>> 1418: 8d 44 40 03 lea eax,[rax+rax*2+0x3]
>
> In execPartition.c and partprune.c, as far as I can see we are cutting
> a few mov, leading to less instructions overall.
>
> For mvdistinct.c, we are cutting things overall. I am seeing less.
>
> All the fuzz in postgres_fdw.c is caused by this one:
> - p_values = (const char **) palloc(sizeof(char *) * fmstate->p_nums
> * numSlots);
> + p_values = palloc_array(const char *, fmstate->p_nums * numSlots);
>
> bufmgr.c did not matter, same before and after.
>
> I am not completely sure about the one in fuzzystrmatch, I would need
> to study more the metaphone code. :)
Actually, the change in fuzzystrmatch.c is incorrect.
With the new code, palloc(0) will be called for strlen(word) == 0. Then
no space for the null-terminator byte will be left.
Even if palloc(0) returns memory that can be dereferenced, I don't think
it's a good idea to rely on that.
> One formula in llvmjit_expr.c has been wrong since v10, so I have
> backpatched a fix for it.
>
> In pg_buffercache_pages.c, the difference is here:
> - os_page_status = palloc(sizeof(uint64) * os_page_count);
> + os_page_status = palloc_array(int, os_page_count);
> Your formula is correct, the previous one was not by using a uint64.
> So it allocated twice too much memory. Backpatched this one down to
> v18.
>
> And that should close this thread, at least from my side..
Thanks Michael for taking care of this patch!
--
David Geier
