| From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: BitmapHeapScan streaming read user and prelim refactoring |
| Date: | 2024-05-02 21:31:00 |
| Message-ID: | 0d3a975f-d45d-4590-b659-3b920164923a@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 4/30/24 14:07, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 26 Apr 2024, at 15:04, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> If this seems correct to you, are you okay with the rest of the fix
>> and test? We could close this open item once the patch is acceptable.
>
> From reading the discussion and the patch this seems like the right fix to me.
I agree.
> Does the test added here aptly cover 04e72ed617be in terms its functionality?
>
AFAIK the test fails without the fix and works with it, so I believe it
does cover the relevant functionality.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Zhang | 2024-05-02 21:33:41 | Re: enhance the efficiency of migrating particularly large tables |
| Previous Message | Chris Cleveland | 2024-05-02 20:42:05 | Re: Why is FOR ORDER BY function getting called when the index is handling ordering? |