Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Nikhil Sontakke
Subject Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions
Date
Msg-id CAMGcDxejTAJVGemUCHE-1FMAcHVNTm5qn=60s8HLCH37NCW_gw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions
List pgsql-hackers
>> They can be, but currently they might not be. So this requires at least
>> big fat warning in docs and description on how to access user catalogs
>> from plugins correctly (ie to always use systable_* API on them). It
>> would be nice if we could check for it in Assert builds at least.
>

Ok, modified the sgml documentation for the above.

> Yea, I agree. I think we should just consider putting similar checks in
> the general scan APIs. With an unlikely() and the easy predictability of
> these checks, I think we should be fine, overhead-wise.
>

Ok, added unlikely() checks in the heap_* scan APIs.

Revised patchset attached.

Regards,
Nikhils

> Greetings,
>
> Andres Freund



-- 
 Nikhil Sontakke                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Cynthia Shang
Date:
Subject: Re: Allow COPY's 'text' format to output a header
Next
From: Alexander Korotkov
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Bug in to_timestamp().