From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Ought to use heap_multi_insert() for pg_attribute/depend insertions? |
Date: | 2019-11-11 08:32:01 |
Message-ID: | 20191111083201.GC1418@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 11:24:46AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> A comment in heap_multi_insert() needs to be updated because it
> becomes the case with your patch:
> /*
> * We don't use heap_multi_insert for catalog tuples yet, but
> * better be prepared...
> */
>
> There is also this one in DecodeMultiInsert()
> * CONTAINS_NEW_TUPLE will always be set currently as multi_insert
> * isn't used for catalogs, but better be future proof.
Applying the latest patch, this results in an assertion failure for
the tests of test_decoding.
> (I am going to comment on the assertion issue on the other thread, I
> got some suggestions about it.)
This part has resulted in 75c1921, and we could just change
DecodeMultiInsert() so as if there is no tuple data then we'd just
leave. However, I don't feel completely comfortable with that either
as it would be nice to still check that for normal relations we
*always* have a FPW available.
Daniel, your thoughts? I am switching the patch as waiting on
author.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-11-11 08:37:30 | Re: Feature improvement: can we add queryId for pg_catalog.pg_stat_activity view? |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2019-11-11 08:27:40 | Re: dropdb --force |