By project convention, these names should include "P" when dealing with a
pointer type; that is, if the result of a GETARG macro is of type FOO *,
it should be called PG_GETARG_FOO_P not just PG_GETARG_FOO. Some newer
types such as JSONB and ranges had not followed the convention, and a
number of contrib modules hadn't gotten that memo either. Rename the
offending macros to improve consistency.
In passing, fix a few places that thought PG_DETOAST_DATUM() returns
a Datum; it does not, it returns "struct varlena *". Applying
DatumGetPointer to that happens not to cause any bad effects today,
but it's formally wrong. Also, adjust an ltree macro that was designed
without any thought for what pgindent would do with it.
This is all cosmetic and shouldn't have any impact on generated code.
Mark Dilger, some further tweaks by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/EA5676F4-766F-4F38-8348-ECC7DB427C6A@gmail.com
I found that half a dozen (nearly 5%) of our AllocSetContextCreate calls
had typos in the context-sizing parameters. While none of these led to
especially significant problems, they did create minor inefficiencies,
and it's now clear that expecting people to copy-and-paste those calls
accurately is not a great idea. Let's reduce the risk of future errors
by introducing single macros that encapsulate the common use-cases.
Three such macros are enough to cover all but two special-purpose contexts;
those two calls can be left as-is, I think.
While this patch doesn't in itself improve matters for third-party
extensions, it doesn't break anything for them either, and they can
gradually adopt the simplified notation over time.
In passing, change TopMemoryContext to use the default allocation
parameters. Formerly it could only be extended 8K at a time. That was
probably reasonable when this code was written; but nowadays we create
many more contexts than we did then, so that it's not unusual to have a
couple hundred K in TopMemoryContext, even without considering various
dubious code that sticks other things there. There seems no good reason
not to let it use growing blocks like most other contexts.
Back-patch to 9.6, mostly because that's still close enough to HEAD that
it's easy to do so, and keeping the branches in sync can be expected to
avoid some future back-patching pain. The bugs fixed by these changes
don't seem to be significant enough to justify fixing them further back.
Discussion: <21072.1472321324@sss.pgh.pa.us>
This patch introduces the ability for complex datatypes to have an
in-memory representation that is different from their on-disk format.
On-disk formats are typically optimized for minimal size, and in any case
they can't contain pointers, so they are often not well-suited for
computation. Now a datatype can invent an "expanded" in-memory format
that is better suited for its operations, and then pass that around among
the C functions that operate on the datatype. There are also provisions
(rudimentary as yet) to allow an expanded object to be modified in-place
under suitable conditions, so that operations like assignment to an element
of an array need not involve copying the entire array.
The initial application for this feature is arrays, but it is not hard
to foresee using it for other container types like JSON, XML and hstore.
I have hopes that it will be useful to PostGIS as well.
In this initial implementation, a few heuristics have been hard-wired
into plpgsql to improve performance for arrays that are stored in
plpgsql variables. We would like to generalize those hacks so that
other datatypes can obtain similar improvements, but figuring out some
appropriate APIs is left as a task for future work. (The heuristics
themselves are probably not optimal yet, either, as they sometimes
force expansion of arrays that would be better left alone.)
Preliminary performance testing shows impressive speed gains for plpgsql
functions that do element-by-element access or update of large arrays.
There are other cases that get a little slower, as a result of added array
format conversions; but we can hope to improve anything that's annoyingly
bad. In any case most applications should see a net win.
Tom Lane, reviewed by Andres Freund
Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane