| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Is this a problem in GenericXLogFinish()? |
| Date: | 2023-10-28 11:00:00 |
| Message-ID: | ZTzpsFEV3DhlmxX5@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Oct 28, 2023 at 03:45:13PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Yes, we need it to exclude any concurrent in-progress scans that could
> return incorrect tuples during bucket squeeze operation.
Thanks. So I assume that we should just set REGBUF_NO_CHANGE when the
primary and write buffers are the same and there are no tuples to
move. Say with something like the attached?
--
Michael
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| fix-hash-replay.patch | text/x-diff | 1.1 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-10-28 11:01:46 | Re: maybe a type_sanity. sql bug |
| Previous Message | jian he | 2023-10-28 10:38:16 | Re: Issues with Information_schema.views |