Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2019-09-22 18:43:23 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm not convinced that it'd be safe to re-use an ExprState after a
>> previous execution failed (though perhaps Andres has a different
>> opinion?)
> I don't immediately see why it'd be problematic to reuse at a later
> time, as long as it's guaranteed that a) there's only one execution
> happening at a time b) the failure wasn't in the middle of writing a
> value. a) would be problematic regardless of reuse-after-failure, and
> b) should be satisfied by only failing at ereport etc.
I think you're considering a much smaller slice of the system than
what seems to me to be at risk here. As an example, an ExprState
tree would also include any fn_extra-linked state that individual
functions might've set up. We've got very little control over what
the validity requirements are for those or how robust the code that
creates them is. I *think* that most of the core code that makes
such things is written in a way that it doesn't leave partially-valid
cache state if setup fails partway through ... but I wouldn't swear
that it all is, and I'd certainly bet money on there being third-party
code that isn't careful about that.
> Hm. I interestingly am working on a patch that merges all the memory
> allocations done for an ExprState into one or two allocations (by
> basically doing the traversal twice). Then it'd be feasible to just
> pfree() the memory, if that helps.
Again, that'd do nothing to clean up subsidiary fn_extra state.
If we want no leaks, we need a separate context for the tree
to live in.
regards, tom lane
