Re: posgres 12 bug (partitioned table)

From: Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Soumyadeep Chakraborty <soumyadeep2007(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Pavel Biryukov <79166341370(at)yandex(dot)ru>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
Subject: Re: posgres 12 bug (partitioned table)
Date: 2020-07-10 11:43:18
Message-ID: CA+HiwqG2kLk4BHF4AVuEjDrW8Xqh5ub=s=hwi1rvnmuZ+gKVDg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers

Reading my own words, I think I must fix an ambiguity:

On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 3:23 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> So even if an AM's table_tuple_insert() itself doesn't populate the
> transaction info into the slot handed to it, maybe as an optimization,
> it does not sound entirely unreasonable to expect that the AM's
> slot_getsysattr() callback returns it correctly when projecting a
> target list containing system columns.

The "maybe as an optimization" refers to the part of the sentence that
comes before it. That is, I mean table_tuple_insert() may choose to
not populate the transaction info in the slot as an optimization.

--
Amit Langote
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fabien COELHO 2020-07-10 11:52:10 Re: TDE in PostgreSQL
Previous Message Євген Панченко 2020-07-10 08:11:52 TDE in PostgreSQL

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2020-07-10 11:58:02 Re: TAP tests and symlinks on Windows
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2020-07-10 11:34:16 Re: [PATCH v2] Allow COPY "text" to output a header and add header matching mode to COPY FROM