| From: | Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: table AM option passing |
| Date: | 2026-03-18 20:20:20 |
| Message-ID: | CAN4CZFMheEoAuLbszaYg=eo=WP0ichG+8ubF5ym5jEh_2Xr1DA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello!
I think there's a change missing in simple_table_tuple_update that
works by accident, as true == 1 == TABLE_UPDATE_WAIT.
Maybe the values could use a different starting value instead of 1 to
surface possible issues?
+ * TABLE_DELETE_WAIT -- set if should wait for any conflicting
+ * update/delete to commit/abort
+ * TABLE_DELETE_CHANGING_PART -- set iff the tuple is being moved to
+ * another partition table due to an update of the partition key.
+ * Otherwise, false.
"Otherwise, false" seems like a leftover from the previous comment version?
tableam.h also have two leftover "wait == false" comments.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2026-03-18 20:44:34 | Re: pg_plan_advice |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2026-03-18 20:16:14 | Re: Don't synchronously wait for already-in-progress IO in read stream |