Re: Using Expanded Objects other than Arrays from plpgsql

> On 26 Jan 2025, at 20:37, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> 
>> And the coverage of newly invented mark_stmt() 42.37%. Some of branches are easy noops, but some are not.
> 
> Yeah.  I'm not too concerned about that because it's pretty much a
> copy-and-paste of the adjacent code.  Maybe we should think about
> some way of refactoring pl_funcs.c to reduce duplication, but I
> don't have any great ideas about how.

OK, now I got it. The whole purpose of 2nd patch is to do
if (expr->target_param >= 0)	expr->target_is_local = bms_is_member(expr->target_param, local_dnos);
to local variables. 

> 
>> expr_is_assignment_source() is named like if it should return nool, but it's void.
> 
> I've been less than satisfied with that name too.  I intended it
> as a statement of fact, "this expression has been found to be 
> the source of an assignment".  But it does seem confusing.
> Maybe we should recast it as an action.  What do you think of
> "mark_expr_as_assignment_source"?

Sounds better to me. I found no examples of similar functions nether in pl_gram.y, nor in gram.y, so IMO mark_expr_as_assignment_source() is the best candidate.

> 
>> I could not grasp from reading the code one generic question about new optimization rule. What cost does checking for possible in-place update incurs to code cannot have this optimization? Is it O(numer_of_arguments) of for every assignment execution?
> 
> No, the extra effort is incurred at most once per assignment statement
> per session.  (Unless the plpgsql function's cache entry gets
> invalidated, in which case we'd rebuild all of the function's data
> structures and have to redo this work too.)

OK, I think execution benefits justify this preparatory costs.

>  We set up the evaluation
> function "paramfunc" as plpgsql_param_eval_var_check if we think we
> might be able to apply this optimization, or plpgsql_param_eval_var_ro
> if we don't think so but the variable is of varlena type.  At runtime,
> if the variable's current value is not actually expanded, then
> plpgsql_param_eval_var_check falls through doing essentially the same
> work as plpgsql_param_eval_var_ro, so there should be no added cost.
> The first time we observe that the value *is* expanded, we incur the
> cost to detect whether an optimization is really possible, and then
> we change the "paramfunc" pointer to be the appropriate function
> so as to apply the optimization or not without rechecking.  So
> generally speaking, if we're considering a variable of a type that
> doesn't support expansion, there should be zero extra per-execution
> cost.  There is some extra cost at function compilation time to
> determine which expressions are assignment sources (but we were doing
> that already) and to discover whether those assignments are to
> nonlocal variables (which is new work, but only needs to be done in
> functions with exception blocks).

Got it, many thanks for the explanation.

But I've got some new questions:

I'm lost in internals of ExprEvalStep. But void *paramarg and his friend void *paramarg2 are cryptic. They always have same type and same meaning, but have very generic names.

I wonder if you plan similar optimizations for array_cat(), array_remove() etc?

+   a := a || a; -- not optimizable

Why is it not optimizable? Because there is no support function, because array_cat() has no support function, or something else?

Besides this, the patch looks good to me.


Best regards, Andrey Borodin.