Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions

On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 9:27 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 5:16 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 8:41 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
>
> > 5. Shouldn't we add a check in table_scan_sample_next_block and
> > table_scan_sample_next_tuple APIs as well?
>
> I am not sure that we need to do that, Because generally, we want to
> avoid getting any wrong system table tuple which we can use for taking
> some decision or decode tuple. But, I don't think that
> table_scan_sample falls under that category.
>

Hmm, I am asking a check similar to what you have in function
table_scan_bitmap_next_block(), can't we have that one? BTW, I
noticed a below spurious line removal in the patch we are talking
about.

+/*
* These are updated by GetSnapshotData. We initialize them this way
* for the convenience of TransactionIdIsInProgress: even in bootstrap
* mode, we don't want it to say that BootstrapTransactionId is in progress.
@@ -2043,7 +2055,6 @@ SetupHistoricSnapshot(Snapshot
historic_snapshot, HTAB *tuplecids)
tuplecid_data = tuplecids;
}

-

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com