From: | Wenchao Zhang <zwcpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
Cc: | andres <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, dilipbalaut <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Assign TupleTableSlot->tts_tableOid duplicated in tale AM. |
Date: | 2022-09-30 03:30:57 |
Message-ID: | CAEyNz8pZcMhcroDMo-r7YJLQL_CcnSwuYuUmc6RBJneFHhprgw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Firstly, thank you for your reply.
Yeah, I think maybe just assigning tts_tableOid of TTS only once
during scanning the same table may be better. That really needs
to be thinked over.
Regards,
Wenchao
Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> 于2022年9月28日周三 10:47写道:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 11:51 PM Wenchao Zhang <zwcpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > We can get the two assigned values are same by reading codes. Maybe we
> should remove one?
> >
> > What's more, we find that maybe we assign slot->tts_tableOid in outer
> interface like table_scan_getnextslot may be better and more friendly when
> we import other pluggable storage formats.
>
> I suppose that you're right; it really should happen in exactly one
> place, based on some overarching theory about how tts_tableOid works
> with the table AM interface. I just don't know what that theory is.
>
> --
> Peter Geoghegan
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2022-09-30 03:51:41 | Re: Suppressing useless wakeups in walreceiver |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-09-30 03:28:55 | Re: SQL/JSON features for v15 |