On Tue, Jul 07, 2026 at 10:40:12PM +0530, Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla wrote:
> I quickly reviewed the core logic of treating the missing
> chunks as dead and LGTM will further look into this and test.
Thanks for that. This is tricky and invasive enough that this
warrants more eyes.
One thing that I still don't like much in the patch as written is my
use of a missing_ok argument, which feels super confusing as it
applies only to the underlying external TOAST, if the relation has
any. I'd be tempted to rewrite this portion of the patch with a
uint32 flags. Even if we assign one value for now (say MISSING_TOAST,
MISSING_TOAST_OK or whatever), it would allow more flexibility on ABI
grounds if we want more like states in the future across this portion
of the stack. Again, I strongly doubt that we will be able to
backpatch any of that.
--
Michael
