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

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification
Date
Msg-id CAH2-Wz=6shV+jJmdSB0sHOpmF9bNz_ej-GM-1D2f23ODsVodtQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification  (Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 5:47 AM, Pavan Deolasee
<pavan.deolasee@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Fair point. Again, I'm going to suggest deferring to the committer. I
seem to have decision fatigue this week.

> FWIW I also looked at the 0001 patch and it looks fine to me.

I'm grateful that you didn't feel any need to encourage me to use
whatever the novel/variant filter du jour is!     :-)

-- 
Peter Geoghegan


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Changing WAL Header to reduce contention during ReserveXLogInsertLocation()
Next
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: JIT compiling with LLVM v12