On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 6:42 AM houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com
<houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> Attach the V68 patch set which addressed the above comments and changes.
>
Few comments and suggestions:
==========================
1.
/*
+ * For updates, if both the new tuple and old tuple are not null, then both
+ * of them need to be checked against the row filter.
+ */
+ tmp_new_slot = new_slot;
+ slot_getallattrs(new_slot);
+ slot_getallattrs(old_slot);
+
Isn't it better to add assert like
Assert(map_changetype_pubaction[*action] == PUBACTION_UPDATE); before
the above code? I have tried to change this part of the code in the
attached top-up patch.
2.
+ /*
+ * For updates, if both the new tuple and old tuple are not null, then both
+ * of them need to be checked against the row filter.
+ */
+ tmp_new_slot = new_slot;
+ slot_getallattrs(new_slot);
+ slot_getallattrs(old_slot);
+
+ /*
+ * The new tuple might not have all the replica identity columns, in which
+ * case it needs to be copied over from the old tuple.
+ */
+ for (i = 0; i < desc->natts; i++)
+ {
+ Form_pg_attribute att = TupleDescAttr(desc, i);
+
+ /*
+ * if the column in the new tuple or old tuple is null, nothing to do
+ */
+ if (tmp_new_slot->tts_isnull[i] || old_slot->tts_isnull[i])
+ continue;
+
+ /*
+ * Unchanged toasted replica identity columns are only detoasted in the
+ * old tuple, copy this over to the new tuple.
+ */
+ if (att->attlen == -1 &&
+ VARATT_IS_EXTERNAL_ONDISK(tmp_new_slot->tts_values[i]) &&
+ !VARATT_IS_EXTERNAL_ONDISK(old_slot->tts_values[i]))
+ {
+ if (tmp_new_slot == new_slot)
+ {
+ tmp_new_slot = MakeSingleTupleTableSlot(desc, &TTSOpsVirtual);
+ ExecClearTuple(tmp_new_slot);
+ ExecCopySlot(tmp_new_slot, new_slot);
+ }
+
+ tmp_new_slot->tts_values[i] = old_slot->tts_values[i];
+ tmp_new_slot->tts_isnull[i] = old_slot->tts_isnull[i];
+ }
+ }
What is the need to assign new_slot to tmp_new_slot at the beginning
of this part of the code? Can't we do this when we found some
attribute that needs to be copied from the old tuple?
The other part which is not clear to me by looking at this code and
comments is how do we ensure that we cover all cases where the new
tuple doesn't have values?
Attached top-up patch with some minor changes. Kindly review.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.