From: | Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andy Fan <zhihuifan1213(at)163(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Comment in portal.h |
Date: | 2024-08-01 09:05:47 |
Message-ID: | CAPmGK1629_03401siY5_tbC_h_HiZmx+EGg3nFzdxyE76iRpKg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 8:55 AM Andy Fan <zhihuifan1213(at)163(dot)com> wrote:
> Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > I noticed $SUBJECT while working on something else:
> >
> > /*
> > * Where we store tuples for a held cursor or a PORTAL_ONE_RETURNING or
> > * PORTAL_UTIL_SELECT query. (A cursor held past the end of its
> > * transaction no longer has any active executor state.)
> > */
> > Tuplestorestate *holdStore; /* store for holdable cursors */
> > MemoryContext holdContext; /* memory containing holdStore */
> >
> > We do that for PORTAL_ONE_MOD_WITH as well, so the comment should be
> > "Where we store tuples for a held cursor or a PORTAL_ONE_RETURNING,
> > PORTAL_ONE_MOD_WITH, or PORTAL_UTIL_SELECT query.". Attached is a
> > patch for that.
>
> Patch looks good to me.
>
> All the codes of PortalRun & FillPortalStore & PortalRunSelect are
> consistent with this idea.
Pushed. Thanks for looking!
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michail Nikolaev | 2024-08-01 09:25:36 | Re: [BUG?] check_exclusion_or_unique_constraint false negative |
Previous Message | Alexander Lakhin | 2024-08-01 09:00:00 | Re: Improving tracking/processing of buildfarm test failures |