| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Decoding speculative insert with toast leaks memory |
| Date: | 2021-06-24 03:15:48 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1JbvGG56Av4GSnR99R2TPQJ7eaA0URu+R45Dyd==nP4hA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 8:21 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> > While rebasing a patch broken by 4daa140a2f5, I noticed that the patch
> > does this:
>
> > @@ -63,6 +63,7 @@ enum ReorderBufferChangeType
> > REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_INTERNAL_TUPLECID,
> > REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_INTERNAL_SPEC_INSERT,
> > REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_INTERNAL_SPEC_CONFIRM,
> > + REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_INTERNAL_SPEC_ABORT,
> > REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_TRUNCATE
> > };
>
> > Isn't that an undesirable ABI break for extensions?
>
> I think it's OK in HEAD. I agree we shouldn't do it like that
> in the back branches.
>
Okay, I'll change this in back branches and HEAD to keep the code
consistent, or do you think it is better to retain the order in HEAD
as it is and just change it for back-branches?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zhihong Yu | 2021-06-24 03:43:30 | Re: [bug?] Missed parallel safety checks, and wrong parallel safety |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-06-24 03:10:25 | Re: [bug?] Missed parallel safety checks, and wrong parallel safety |