Hi,
On 2019-09-05 12:59:11 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> Did a good bit more comment polishing, renamed a few more variables.
Pushed now, after some more polishing.
> I also added tests for things that I thought were clearly missing
> (including a test that errors out before the code changes in the
> patch).
For 12, I had to replace the NOTICE with WARNING (including SET
client_min_messages). I wonder if we ought to backpatch
commit ebd49928215e3854d91167e798949a75b34958d0
Author: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 2019-07-27 15:59:57 -0400
Don't drop NOTICE messages in isolation tests.
to avoid backpatching pain?
> I tried for a while to develop one for mark/restore of IndexOnlyScans,
> but I concluded that that code is basically dead right now. Every scan
> node of a normal that gets modified or needs a rowmark implies having
> ctid as part of the targetlist. And we neither allow ctid to be part of
> index definitions, nor understand that we actually kinda know the ctid
> from within the index scan (HOT would make using the tid hard). So the
> relevant code in nodeIndexOnly.c seems dead?
I wonder if, on master, we should make ExecIndexOnlyMarkPos(),
ExecIndexOnlyRestrPos() ERROR out in case they're hit for an EPQ
relation, given that they ought to be unreachable.
Greetings,
Andres Freund