From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id E6CC92660A for ; Tue, 14 May 2019 14:41:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing.freelists.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6gFw4gSNOVbF for ; Tue, 14 May 2019 14:41:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp57.i.mail.ru (smtp57.i.mail.ru [217.69.128.37]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTPS id A4574263DC for ; Tue, 14 May 2019 14:41:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 21:41:06 +0300 From: Konstantin Osipov Subject: [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] box: run checks on insertions in LUA spaces Message-ID: <20190514184106.GC5201@atlas> References: <20190514170050.GB5201@atlas> <60C9520B-20B2-4944-B44E-99B6A3E454EB@tarantool.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <60C9520B-20B2-4944-B44E-99B6A3E454EB@tarantool.org> Sender: tarantool-patches-bounce@freelists.org Errors-to: tarantool-patches-bounce@freelists.org Reply-To: tarantool-patches@freelists.org List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: tarantool-patches List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-post: List-Archive: To: "n.pettik" Cc: tarantool-patches@freelists.org, Kirill Shcherbatov * n.pettik [19/05/14 21:26]: > >> On 14 May 2019, at 20:00, Konstantin Osipov wrote: > >> > >> * Kirill Shcherbatov [19/05/14 18:04]: > >>> @v.shpilevoy > >>>> Yes, I will. Kirill, please, send it again in a new thread. You can keep > >>>> version 3 and omit change list. > >>> > >>> @kostya > >>>> It's better to fetch the bound field upon first access. > >>>> Most paths of the CHECK constraint may not touch most of the > >>>> fields. > >>> I have no idea, how, to fit it in our architecture. > >>> OP_Column has no intersections with binding machinery. > >> > >> Well, I agree something like OP_fetch is necessary. > > We can’t we simply do this: > > Add to ck_constraint array of used field numbers - > that’s done during ck_constraint_program_compile() > while we have struct Expr by traversing AST. Then, > we emit OP_Variable ck_field_count times, where > ck_field_count is length of array of used field numbers. > > Part of code responsible for CK code generation is: > > case TK_COLUMN:{ > int iTab = pExpr->iTable; > int col = pExpr->iColumn; > if (iTab < 0) { > if (pParse->ckBase > 0) { > /* Generating CHECK constraints. */ > return col + pParse->ckBase; > } > > > So we have to pass that array to parsing context. > Using that array code will look like this: > > … > for (int i = 0; i < ck_field_count; ++i) { > if (ck_fields[i] == col) > return ck_fields[i]; > } > assert(0); > > When it’s time to run program, we go through array > and assign only fields present there: > > … > for (int i = 0; i < ck_field_count; ++i) { > sql_bind_decode(&bind, ck_fields[i]) > sql_bind_column(...) > } I believe I understand how it works now. What is the problem in fixing it? In scope of this patch set or a different one is another issue. -- Konstantin Osipov, Moscow, Russia, +7 903 626 22 32