Horton
Menu

Re: Ignoring BRIN for HOT udpates seems broken

Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>

View thread
From: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2022-06-16T13:05:06Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 6/6/22 09:28, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2022 at 09:08:08AM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> Attached is a patch reverting both commits (5753d4ee32 and fe60b67250).
>> This changes the IndexAmRoutine struct, so it's an ABI break. That's not
>> great post-beta :-( In principle we might also leave amhotblocking in
>> the struct but ignore it in the code (and treat it as false), but that
>> seems weird and it's going to be a pain when backpatching. Opinions?
> 
> I don't think that you need to worry about ABI breakages now in beta,
> because that's the period of time where we can still change things and
> shape the code in its best way for prime time.  It depends on the
> change, of course, but what you are doing, by removing the field,
> looks right to me here.

I've pushed the revert. Let's try again for PG16.


regards

-- 
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Ignore BRIN indexes when checking for HOT updates

  2. Revert changes in HOT handling of BRIN indexes

  3. Ignore BRIN indexes when checking for HOT udpates