FAQ

Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 29.06.2011 00:33, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 28.06.2011 20:47, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Hmm, the calls in question are the ones in heapgettup() and
heapgettup_pagemode(), which are subroutines of heap_getnext().
heap_getnext() is only used in sequential scans, so it seems
safe to remove those calls.
I haven't found anything to the contrary, if I understand
correctly, Dan found the same, and all the tests pass without
them. Here's a patch to remove them. This makes the
recently-added rs_relpredicatelocked boolean field unnecessary,
so that's removed in this patch, too.
Thanks, committed. I also moved the PredicateLockRelation() call
to heap_beginscan(), per earlier discussion.
Thanks!

Before we leave the subject of modularity, do you think the entire
"else" clause dealing with the lossy bitmaps should be a heapam.c
function called from nodeBitmapHeapscan.c? With the move of the
PredicateLockRelation() call you mention above, that leaves this as
the only place in the executor which references SSI, and it also is
the only place in the executor to call PageGetMaxOffsetNumber() and
OffsetNumberNext(), which seem like AM things. The logic seems
somewhat similar to heap_hot_search_buffer() and such a function
would take roughly the same parameters.

On the other hand, it's obviously not a bug, so maybe that's
something to put on a list to look at later.

-Kevin

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts

Previous

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 9 of 9 | next ›
Discussion Overview
grouppgsql-hackers @
categoriespostgresql
postedJun 27, '11 at 6:24p
activeJun 29, '11 at 7:48p
posts9
users4
websitepostgresql.org...
irc#postgresql

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase