From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Chris Travers <chris(dot)travers(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: POC: Lock updated tuples in tuple_update() and tuple_delete() |
Date: | 2023-04-02 00:47:18 |
Message-ID: | 20230402004718.uclwhqjvxnr52emt@awork3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2023-04-02 03:37:19 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 1, 2023 at 8:21 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > Given that the in-tree state has been broken for a week, I think it probably
> > is time to revert the commits that already went in.
>
> The revised patch is attached. The most notable change is getting rid
> of LazyTupleTableSlot. Also get rid of complex computations to detect
> how to initialize LazyTupleTableSlot. Instead just pass the oldSlot
> as an argument of ExecUpdate() and ExecDelete(). The price for this
> is just preallocation of ri_oldTupleSlot before calling ExecDelete().
> The slot allocation is quite cheap. After all wrappers it's
> table_slot_callbacks(), which is very cheap, single palloc() and few
> fields initialization. It doesn't seem reasonable to introduce an
> infrastructure to evade this.
>
> I think patch resolves all the major issues you've highlighted. Even
> if there are some minor things missed, I'd prefer to push this rather
> than reverting the whole work.
Shrug. You're designing new APIs, days before the feature freeze. This just
doesn't seem ready in time for 16. I certainly won't have time to look at it
sufficiently in the next 5 days.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2023-04-02 03:42:44 | Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys |
Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2023-04-02 00:37:19 | Re: POC: Lock updated tuples in tuple_update() and tuple_delete() |