| From: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification |
| Date: | 2018-03-28 12:47:55 |
| Message-ID: | CABOikdPBA-DTXMWK3y4-DdF7Y6P+Y4igyAnFxx+9tHVa57MuKQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 2:48 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
>
> I don't think so. The transaction involved is still an ordinary user
> transaction.
>
>
Mostly a nitpick, but I guess we should leave a comment
after IndexBuildHeapScan() saying heap_endscan() is not necessary
since IndexBuildHeapScan()
does that internally. I stumbled upon that while looking for any potential
leaks. I know at least one other caller of IndexBuildHeapScan() doesn't
bother to say anything either, but it's helpful.
FWIW I also looked at the 0001 patch and it looks fine to me.
Thanks,
Pavan
--
Pavan Deolasee http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-03-28 12:54:59 | Re: PL/pgSQL nested CALL with transactions |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-03-28 12:43:33 | Re: Jsonb transform for pl/python |