| From: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, kes-kes(at)yandex(dot)ru |
| Subject: | Re: mark/restore failures on unsorted merge joins |
| Date: | 2020-11-24 19:41:35 |
| Message-ID: | 87ft4y4lxm.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
Tom> Oh, sorry, I misread your comment to be that you wanted to add a
Tom> field to IndexAmRoutine. You're right, the real issue here is that
Tom> ExecSupportsMarkRestore lacks any convenient access to the needed
Tom> info, and we need to add a bool to IndexOptInfo to fix that.
Tom> I don't see any compelling reason why you couldn't add the field
Tom> at the end in the back branches; that's what we usually do to
Tom> avoid ABI breaks. Although actually (counts fields...) it looks
Tom> like there's at least one pad byte after amcanparallel, so you
Tom> could add a bool there without any ABI consequence, resulting in a
Tom> reasonably natural field order in all branches.
I guess that's close enough; this should suffice then.
--
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| markpos.patch | text/x-patch | 1.7 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniil Zakhlystov | 2020-11-24 19:47:57 | Re: libpq compression |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-11-24 19:31:54 | Re: enable_incremental_sort changes query behavior |