Re: table AM option passing - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Zsolt Parragi
Subject Re: table AM option passing
Date
Msg-id CAN4CZFMheEoAuLbszaYg=eo=WP0ichG+8ubF5ym5jEh_2Xr1DA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread
In response to table AM option passing  (Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hello!

I think there's a change missing in simple_table_tuple_update that
works by accident, as true == 1 == TABLE_UPDATE_WAIT.

Maybe the values could use a different starting value instead of 1 to
surface possible issues?

+ * TABLE_DELETE_WAIT -- set if should wait for any conflicting
+ * update/delete to commit/abort
+ * TABLE_DELETE_CHANGING_PART -- set iff the tuple is being moved to
+ * another partition table due to an update of the partition key.
+ * Otherwise, false.

"Otherwise, false" seems like a leftover from the previous comment version?

tableam.h also have two leftover "wait == false" comments.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Don't synchronously wait for already-in-progress IO in read stream
Next
From: Zsolt Parragi
Date:
Subject: Re: Stack-based tracking of per-node WAL/buffer usage