| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Temporary tables versus wraparound... again |
| Date: | 2023-04-13 17:01:07 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wzkhnm++b8YFP2OhL25pBM1R7yPRuy8UOubDVjFxJMQXkA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 9:45 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 4:23 PM Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
> > Am I crazy or is the parenthetical comment there exactly backwards? If
> > the horizon is *more recent* then fewer tuples are *non*-removable.
> > I.e. *more* tuples are removable, no?
>
> Isn't it the non-parenthetical part that's wrong? I would expect that
> if we don't know which relation it is, the horizon might be
> considerably LESS recent, which would result in fewer tuples being
> removable.
You can make arguments for either way of restating it being clearer
than the other.
Personally I think that the comment should explain what happens when
you pass NULL as your relation, rather than explaining what doesn't
happen (or does happen?) when you pass a non-NULL relation pointer.
That way the just-pass-NULL case can be addressed as the
possibly-aberrant case -- the possibly-sloppy approach. You're really
supposed to pass a non-NULL relation pointer if at all possible.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gurjeet | 2023-04-13 17:41:29 | Re: pg_replslotdata - a tool for displaying replication slot information |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2023-04-13 16:44:43 | Re: Temporary tables versus wraparound... again |