Re: Tid scan improvements - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Edmund Horner
Subject Re: Tid scan improvements
Date
Msg-id CAMyN-kCq+fDLUSEN+TmUkpn5YGQCyKKR266tyEnJjOd_WT-SDQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Tid scan improvements  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 at 16:52, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 2018-Nov-06, David Rowley wrote:
> > 14. we pass 'false' to what?
> >
> > + * save the tuple and the buffer returned to us by the access methods in
> > + * our scan tuple slot and return the slot.  Note: we pass 'false' because
> > + * tuples returned by heap_getnext() are pointers onto disk pages and were
> > + * not created with palloc() and so should not be pfree()'d.  Note also
> > + * that ExecStoreHeapTuple will increment the refcount of the buffer; the
> > + * refcount will not be dropped until the tuple table slot is cleared.
> >   */
>
> Seems a mistake stemming from 29c94e03c7d0 ...

Yep -- I copied that bit from nodeSeqscan.c.  Some of the notes were
removed in that change, but nodeSeqscan.c and nodeIndexscan.c still
have them.

I made a little patch to remove them.

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: Calculate total_table_pages after set_base_rel_sizes()
Next
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: pread() and pwrite()