Re: mark/restore failures on unsorted merge joins

From: Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, kes-kes(at)yandex(dot)ru
Subject: Re: mark/restore failures on unsorted merge joins
Date: 2020-11-24 19:41:35
Message-ID: 87ft4y4lxm.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

Tom> Oh, sorry, I misread your comment to be that you wanted to add a
Tom> field to IndexAmRoutine. You're right, the real issue here is that
Tom> ExecSupportsMarkRestore lacks any convenient access to the needed
Tom> info, and we need to add a bool to IndexOptInfo to fix that.

Tom> I don't see any compelling reason why you couldn't add the field
Tom> at the end in the back branches; that's what we usually do to
Tom> avoid ABI breaks. Although actually (counts fields...) it looks
Tom> like there's at least one pad byte after amcanparallel, so you
Tom> could add a bool there without any ABI consequence, resulting in a
Tom> reasonably natural field order in all branches.

I guess that's close enough; this should suffice then.

--
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)

Attachment Content-Type Size
markpos.patch text/x-patch 1.7 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Daniil Zakhlystov 2020-11-24 19:47:57 Re: libpq compression
Previous Message Tom Lane 2020-11-24 19:31:54 Re: enable_incremental_sort changes query behavior