Re: Batching in executor

From: Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at>
To: Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku(at)gmail(dot)com>, cca5507 <cca5507(at)qq(dot)com>, Daniil Davydov <3danissimo(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me>
Subject: Re: Batching in executor
Date: 2026-07-17 12:15:52
Message-ID: 31019.1784290552@localhost
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:

> 0003:
>
> * I'm not sure the batch-specific callbacks should be mandatory
>
> diff --git a/src/backend/access/table/tableamapi.c b/src/backend/access/table/tableamapi.c
> index 5450a27faeb..9ef6b5cca65 100644
> --- a/src/backend/access/table/tableamapi.c
> +++ b/src/backend/access/table/tableamapi.c
> @@ -45,6 +45,8 @@ GetTableAmRoutine(Oid amhandler)
> Assert(routine->scan_end != NULL);
> Assert(routine->scan_rescan != NULL);
> Assert(routine->scan_getnextslot != NULL);
> + Assert(routine->scan_getnextbatch != NULL);
> + Assert(routine->batch_slot_callbacks != NULL);

I mean the callback is mandatory in the current version, but ISTM that
nodeSeqscan.c does not work here if the AM does not support batching.

--
Antonin Houska
Web: https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Antonin Houska 2026-07-17 12:20:17 Re: Unexpected changes of CurrentResourceOwner and CurrentMemoryContext
Previous Message Antonin Houska 2026-07-17 12:12:04 Re: Batching in executor