On 2019-Apr-01, Tom Lane wrote: > Fabien COELHO <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr> writes: > >> I was wondering about that too. It seems like it'd be a wise idea to > >> further constrain s and/or n to ensure that the s > 1 code path doesn't do > >> anything too awful ... > > > Yep. The attached version enforces s >= 1.001, which avoids the worse cost > > of iterating, according to my small tests. > > Seems reasonable. Pushed with minor documentation editing.
Ah, so we now we can get rid of the TState * being passed around separately for expression execution, too? -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
