Re: GIN logging GIN_SEGMENT_UNMODIFIED actions? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: GIN logging GIN_SEGMENT_UNMODIFIED actions?
Date
Msg-id 6129.1472643131@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: GIN logging GIN_SEGMENT_UNMODIFIED actions?  (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: GIN logging GIN_SEGMENT_UNMODIFIED actions?  (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 12:10 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Hmm, comparing gin_desc() to ginRedoInsert() makes me think there are more
>> problems there than that one.  Aren't the references to "payload" wrong
>> in all three branches of that "if" construct, not just the middle one?

> If we do this, the extra information like ginxlogInsertEntry->isDelete will
> never be reported when the record has FPW.

I'm happy to have it print whatever is there, but are you sure that the
information is even there?  I thought that this chunk of the WAL record
would get optimized away if we write an FPW image instead.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Comment on GatherPath.single_copy
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Use static inline functions for Float <-> Datum conversions