| From: | Matheus Alcantara <matheusssilv97(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: read stream on amcheck |
| Date: | 2025-03-27 18:45:46 |
| Message-ID: | CAFY6G8dRsd08o0AgGK=JLYgaoVtPWY8d=svTd9dRXfzLo-7n-Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 3:35 PM Melanie Plageman
<melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 4:45 AM Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > I liked the first approach more. We can solve the first approach's
> > problems by introducing a void pointer to pass to
> > read_stream_begin_relation(). We can set it to &rsdata.range for the
> > SKIP_PAGES_NONE case and &rsdata for the rest.
>
> Cool. I've gone with this approach but have renamed all the functions
> and structs to try and be more consistent and clear.
> Committed in 043799fa08c2c and I marked the commitfest entry as such.
Just my 0.2 cents. I also like the first approach even though I prefer
the v4 version, but anyway, thanks very much for reviewing and
committing!
(I was sending my anwer just when I received your reply)
--
Matheus Alcantara
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2025-03-27 19:25:40 | Re: Support NOT VALID / VALIDATE constraint options for named NOT NULL constraints |
| Previous Message | Melanie Plageman | 2025-03-27 18:35:44 | Re: read stream on amcheck |