Re: outdated comment in table_tuple_update definition - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Ashutosh Bapat
Subject Re: outdated comment in table_tuple_update definition
Date
Msg-id CAExHW5ssNtYX1G4QDkq9FoU222-CubfxdFjyjEty+LT_eas22Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to outdated comment in table_tuple_update definition  (Sergei Kornilov <sk@zsrv.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 3:08 AM Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> wrote:
>
> > On 6 Feb 2025, at 20:00, Sergei Kornilov <sk@zsrv.org> wrote:
>
> > I found that the parameter type was changed by commit 19d8e23 (Ignore BRIN indexes when checking for HOT updates),
butthe comment was not updated. Looks like oversight. 
>
> I agree with your analysis, unless objected to I'll apply the attached in
> shortly to update the documentation.

+ *  update_indexes - in successful cases this indicates the index types
+ * which require new index entries for this tuple

AFAIK, summarising indexes may not necessarily always need a new
entry. So the following sentence looks more accurate
 in successful cases, this indicates the types of indexes (summarising
vs non-summarising) which need an update based on this tuple. The text
in the parenthese would clarify "index types", but if it's too
verbose, it may be omitted.

--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication
Next
From: Tomas Vondra
Date:
Subject: Re: should we have a fast-path planning for OLTP starjoins?