From: | Pavel Borisov <pashkin(dot)elfe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Nikita Malakhov <hukutoc(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Table AM Interface Enhancements |
Date: | 2023-12-20 12:56:45 |
Message-ID: | CALT9ZEGoGhhS=S2L9mtq-FqX_4e1MThUo=5iRHBuOL56W6R1aQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
>
> Additionally changes in 0007 looks dependent from 0005. Does replacement
> of slot inside ExecInsert, that is already used in the code below the call
> of
>
> >/* insert the tuple normally */
> >- table_tuple_insert(resultRelationDesc, slot,
> >- estate->es_output_cid,
> >- 0, NULL);
>
> could be done without side effects?
>
I'm sorry that I inserter not all relevant code in the previous message:
/* insert the tuple normally */
- table_tuple_insert(resultRelationDesc, slot,
- estate->es_output_cid,
- 0, NULL);
+ slot = table_tuple_insert(resultRelationDesc, slot,
+ estate->es_output_cid,
+
(Previously slot variable that exists in the ExecInsert() and could be used
later was not modified at the quoted code block)
Pavel.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jakub Wartak | 2023-12-20 13:10:42 | Re: trying again to get incremental backup |
Previous Message | Euler Taveira | 2023-12-20 12:55:11 | Re: speed up a logical replica setup |