Re: Using Expanded Objects other than Arrays from plpgsql
Michel Pelletier <pelletier.michel@gmail.com>
From: Michel Pelletier <pelletier.michel@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Date: 2024-10-31T23:41:48Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Allow extension functions to participate in in-place updates.
- c366d2bdba7c 18.0 landed
-
Implement new optimization rule for updates of expanded variables.
- 6c7251db0ce1 18.0 landed
-
Detect whether plpgsql assignment targets are "local" variables.
- 36fb9ef269a0 18.0 landed
-
Preliminary refactoring of plpgsql expression construction.
- a654af21ae52 18.0 landed
-
Refactor pl_funcs.c to provide a usage-independent tree walker.
- 6a7283dd2f1c 18.0 landed
-
Generalize plpgsql's heuristic for importing expanded objects.
- 534d0ea6c2b9 18.0 landed
Here's two backtraces from gdb from this function:
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION test2(graph matrix)
RETURNS bigint LANGUAGE plpgsql AS
$$
BEGIN
perform set_element(graph, 1, 1, 1);
RETURN nvals(graph);
end;
$$;
https://gist.githubusercontent.com/michelp/d02e3e300710443454357222077f9ded/raw/86d9c2c3de3f9b4740065a7b8c29a3e1c54b1cac/gistfile1.txt
Both traces are in that file split on the hyphens line 44. I'm still
puzzling it out, could it have something to do with the volatility of the
functions? I'm not entirely clear on how to interpret function volatility
with expanded objects, nvals is STRICT, but set_element is STABLE. I think
my logic there was because it's a mutation. This is likely another
misunderstanding of mine.
-Michel
On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 7:10 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Michel Pelletier <pelletier.michel@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 8:21 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> Another thing that confuses me is why there's a second flatten_matrix
> >> operation happening here. Shouldn't set_element return its result
> >> as a R/W expanded object?
>
> > That confuses me too, and my default assumption is always that I'm doing
> it
> > wrong. set_element does return a R/W object afaict, here is the return:
> > https://github.com/OneSparse/OneSparse/blob/main/src/matrix.c#L1726
>
> Hmph. That seems right. Can you add errbacktrace() to your logging
> ereports, in hopes of seeing how we're getting to flatten_matrix?
> Or break there with gdb for a more complete/reliable stack trace.
>
> regards, tom lane
>