> On 17 Apr 2025, at 00:12, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Daniel Gustafsson <dan...@yesql.se> writes: >>> On 16 Apr 2025, at 23:42, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> I'm not sure >>> how other than giving up on stack allocation of JsonLexContexts, >>> though, especially if we consider the jsonapi API frozen. But seeing >>> that there are only three such call sites and none of them seem in the >>> least performance-critical, maybe we should just do that? > >> I can't see any other option really, and there is no performance angle really >> so that should be safe. Since I committed at least one of these, let me know >> if you want me to tackle it. > > The only alternative I can see that might stop the warning is if we > can find a way to make it clearer to the optimizer that the FREE() > isn't reached. But I'm not sure about a trustworthy way to make that > happen. Maybe it'd work to change the signature of freeJsonLexContext > (or perhaps better, add a separate entry point) so that the caller is > passing a bool constant that controls whether to free the struct. > We could have an Assert that compares that to the state of the > JSONLEX_FREE_STRUCT flag to catch mistakes. This seems kind of messy > though.
Yeah, that seems messy enough that someone down the line will go "why on earth" and we'll have to revisit this discussion. It can probably be made to work but I doubt it will be worth it compared to allocating on the heap. -- Daniel Gustafsson
