Re: eliminate xl_heap_visible to reduce WAL (and eventually set VM on-access)

On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 7:29 PM Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me> wrote:
>
> >> - Do we really want to pass two sets of flags to table_beginscan_common?
> >> I realize it's done to ensure "users" don't use internal flags, but
> >> then maybe it'd be better to do that check in the places calling the
> >> _common? Someone adding a new caller can break this in various ways
> >> anyway, e.g. by setting bits in the internal flags, no?
> >
> > Yes, callers of table_beginscan_common() could pass flags they
> > shouldn't in internal_flags. But I was mostly trying to prevent the
> > case where a user picks a flag that overlaps with an internal flag,
> > conditionally passes it as a user flag, and then when they test for it
> > in their AM-specific code, they aren't actually checking if their own
> > flag is set.
>
> Ah, so we expect people to invent their "own" flags, outside what's in
> ScanOptions? Or do I misunderstand how it works? (I admit not reading
> the whole massive thread, as I was only interested in using the flags in
> my own patch.)

Yes, this isn't really explored in the rest of the thread. I thought
since the flags are threaded all the way through and they can
set/check the flags in the table AM-specific layer, it would make
sense that they could choose flags for their own purposes. They don't
have to wait for consensus on getting a new SO type added. I don't
know if this is a bad idea. However, changing the table AM wrappers
seems more justifiable if we are making them extensible in this way.

> >> If we want to have these checks, should we be more thorough? Should we
> >> check the internal flags only set internal flags?
> >
> > That's easy enough too.
> > Assert((internal_flags & ~SO_INTERNAL_FLAGS) == 0); I think does the trick.

I did this in the previously posted v46.

- Melanie