| From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, Soumyadeep Chakraborty <soumyadeep2007(at)gmail(dot)com>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Ashwin Agrawal <ashwinstar(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: brininsert optimization opportunity |
| Date: | 2024-04-18 09:35:43 |
| Message-ID: | 14e52b46-a802-4035-b33a-627968e14375@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 4/18/24 09:07, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 01:20:39PM +0100, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> I think it's not an issue, or rather that we should not try to guess.
>> Instead make it a simple rule: if aminsert is called, then
>> aminsertcleanup must be called afterwards, period.
>>
>> I agree it would be nice to have a way to verify, but it doesn't seem
>> 100% essential. After all, it's not very common to add new calls to
>> aminsert.
>
> This thread is listed as an open item. What's the follow-up plan?
> The last email of this thread is dated as of the 29th of February,
> which was 6 weeks ago.
Apologies, I got distracted by the other patches. The bug is still
there, I believe the patch shared by Alvaro in [1] is the right way to
deal with it. I'll take care of that today/tomorrow.
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202401091043.e3nrqiad6gb7@alvherre.pgsql
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | shveta malik | 2024-04-18 09:36:18 | Re: Disallow changing slot's failover option in transaction block |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2024-04-18 08:59:33 | Re: plenty code is confused about function level static |