Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Pavan Deolasee
Subject Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification
Date
Msg-id CABOikdPBA-DTXMWK3y4-DdF7Y6P+Y4igyAnFxx+9tHVa57MuKQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>)
List pgsql-hackers


On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 2:48 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.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

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: Jsonb transform for pl/python
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: PL/pgSQL nested CALL with transactions