/* * Determine the number of blocks we have to scan. * * It is sufficient to do this once at scan start, since any tuples added * while the scan is in progress will be invisible to my snapshot anyway. * (That is not true when using a non-MVCC snapshot. However, we couldn't * guarantee to return tuples added after scan start anyway, since they * might go into pages we already scanned. To guarantee consistent * results for a non-MVCC snapshot, the caller must hold some higher-level * lock that ensures the interesting tuple(s) won't change.) */ if (scan->rs_base.rs_parallel != NULL) { bpscan = (ParallelBlockTableScanDesc) scan->rs_base.rs_parallel; scan->rs_nblocks = bpscan->phs_nblocks; } else scan->rs_nblocks = RelationGextNumberOfBlocks(scan->rs_base.rs_rd);
.. }
1. Why do we need scan->rs_nblocks = RelationGextNumberOfBlocks(scan->rs_base.rs_rd) for every rescan, which looks mismatched with the comments along the code. and the comments looks reasonable to me.
To be more precise, this question can be expressed as if the relation size can be changed during rescan. We are sure that the size can be increased due to new data, but we are sure that the new data is useless for the query as well. So looks this case is ok. and for the file size decreasing, since we have lock on the relation, so the file size would not be reduced as well (I have verified
this logic on the online vacuum case, other cases should be similar as well).
