| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Is this a problem in GenericXLogFinish()? |
| Date: | 2023-10-30 10:24:39 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+use8DaXfgEwRiM7CnEk83d_FZCMf4qK7DZ8Hbt2vhzg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Oct 28, 2023 at 4:30 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 28, 2023 at 03:45:13PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > Yes, we need it to exclude any concurrent in-progress scans that could
> > return incorrect tuples during bucket squeeze operation.
>
> Thanks. So I assume that we should just set REGBUF_NO_CHANGE when the
> primary and write buffers are the same and there are no tuples to
> move. Say with something like the attached?
>
What if the primary and write buffer are not the same but ntups is
zero? Won't we hit the assertion again in that case?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2023-10-30 10:45:44 | Re: Why is DEFAULT_FDW_TUPLE_COST so insanely low? |
| Previous Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2023-10-30 10:00:56 | Re: Infinite Interval |