Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of largein-progress transactions

On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 9:27 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 5:16 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 8:41 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
>
> > 5. Shouldn't we add a check in table_scan_sample_next_block and
> > table_scan_sample_next_tuple APIs as well?
>
> I am not sure that we need to do that,  Because generally, we want to
> avoid getting any wrong system table tuple which we can use for taking
> some decision or decode tuple.  But, I don't think that
> table_scan_sample falls under that category.
>

Hmm, I am asking a check similar to what you have in function
table_scan_bitmap_next_block(), can't we have that one?  BTW, I
noticed a below spurious line removal in the patch we are talking
about.

+/*
  * These are updated by GetSnapshotData.  We initialize them this way
  * for the convenience of TransactionIdIsInProgress: even in bootstrap
  * mode, we don't want it to say that BootstrapTransactionId is in progress.
@@ -2043,7 +2055,6 @@ SetupHistoricSnapshot(Snapshot
historic_snapshot, HTAB *tuplecids)
  tuplecid_data = tuplecids;
 }

-



-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com