| From: | Karol Trzcionka <karlikt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: GSOC13 proposal - extend RETURNING syntax |
| Date: | 2013-07-12 22:49:45 |
| Message-ID: | 51E08809.4090107@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Next version:
- cleanup
- regression test
- fix issue reported by johto (invalid values in parallel transactions)
I would like more feedback and comments about the patch, as some parts
may be too hacky.
In particular, is it a problem that I update a pointer to planSlot? In
my patch, it points to tuple after all updates done between planner and
executor (in fact it is not planSlot right now). I don't know whether
the tuple could be deleted in the intervening time and if the pointer
doesn't point to "unreserved" memory (I mean - memory which may be
overwritten by something meanwhile).
Regards,
Karol
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| before_after_v2.patch | text/x-patch | 27.3 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2013-07-12 23:25:14 | Re: [PERFORM] In progress INSERT wrecks plans on table |
| Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2013-07-12 22:47:13 | Re: In progress INSERT wrecks plans on table |