| From: | Michail Nikolaev <michail(dot)nikolaev(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Andrey M(dot) Borodin" <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: bt_index_parent_check and concurrently build indexes |
| Date: | 2024-12-15 18:43:24 |
| Message-ID: | CANtu0og_7Jvyfu2p5PJJQZ7yNY97v5cB0zan=GR_fxu8j-_7WA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello, Andrey!
Thanks for the review!
> I think usually write only commit year. Something tells me you can safely
write 2025 there.
Done.
> Can't wrap my head why do you need this?
Oops, copy-paste, fixed.
> I think this comment describes behavior before the fix in present tense.
Fixed.
> Snapshot business seems incorrect to me here...
Hm, it seems like it is correct. `snapshot` variable is deleted, we only
use `state->snapshot` now (if it is required at all).
Best regards,
Mikhail.
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v2-0001-amcheck-Fix-bt_index_parent_check-behavior-with-C.patch | application/octet-stream | 8.5 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Smith | 2024-12-15 20:40:37 | Re: Adding a '--two-phase' option to 'pg_createsubscriber' utility. |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-12-15 18:40:27 | Re: [BUG] pgbench nested \if conditions incorrectly processed |