| From: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: ModifyTable overheads in generic plans |
| Date: | 2021-04-08 02:12:13 |
| Message-ID: | CA+HiwqFhBX6f80qSz2OURYws0JzOUZQi-c9C3j4Rp0O5JGxPKA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 1:34 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Also, I think we should update the commentary around ri_projectNew a
> > bit to make it clear that noplace beside ExecGet{Insert|Update}Tuple
> > should be touching it and the associated slots.
>
> Hm. I pushed your comment fixes in nodeModifyTable.c, but not this
> change, because it seemed to be more verbose and not really an
> improvement. Why are these fields any more hands-off than any others?
> Besides which, there certainly is other code touching ri_oldTupleSlot.
Oops, that's right.
> Anyway, I've marked the CF entry closed, because I think this is about
> as far as we can get for v14. I'm not averse to revisiting the
> RETURNING and WITH CHECK OPTIONS issues later, but it looks to me like
> that needs more study.
Sure, I will look into that.
--
Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2021-04-08 02:15:25 | Re: Can we remove extra memset in BloomInitPage, GinInitPage and SpGistInitPage when we have it in PageInit? |
| Previous Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2021-04-08 02:09:48 | Re: Why is specifying oids = false multiple times in create table is silently ignored? |