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
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 |
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 |