From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: COPY FREEZE and setting PD_ALL_VISIBLE/visibility map bits |
Date: | 2019-04-04 19:23:08 |
Message-ID: | 20190404192308.mumsbtmccqyuebdh@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2019-04-04 16:15:54 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2019-Apr-04, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > I'm totally not OK with this from a layering
> > POV. CheckAndSetAllVisibleBulkInsertState is entirely heap specific
> > (without being named such), whereas all the heap specific bits are
> > getting moved below tableam.
>
> This is a fair complaint, but on the other hand the COPY changes for
> table AM are still being developed, so there's no ground on which to
> rebase this patch. Do you have a timeline on getting the COPY one
> committed?
~2h. Just pondering the naming of some functions etc. Don't think
there's a large interdependency though.
But even if tableam weren't committed, I'd still argue that it's
structurally done wrong in the patch right now. FWIW, I actually think
this whole approach isn't quite right - this shouldn't be done as a
secondary action after we'd already inserted, with a separate
lock-unlock cycle etc.
Also, how is this code even close to correct?
CheckAndSetPageAllVisible() modifies the buffer in a crucial way, and
there's no WAL logging? Without even a comment arguing why that's OK (I
don't think it is)?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Daniel Verite | 2019-04-04 19:26:21 | Re: Changes to pg_dump/psql following collation "C" in the catalog |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2019-04-04 19:17:47 | Re: Row Level Security − leakproof-ness and performance implications |