Horton

Re: posgres 12 bug (partitioned table)

Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
To: Soumyadeep Chakraborty <soumyadeep2007@gmail.com>
Cc: Pavel Biryukov <79166341370@yandex.ru>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>
Date: 2020-07-10T11:43:18Z
Lists: pgsql-bugs, pgsql-hackers 
Reading my own words, I think I must fix an ambiguity:

On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 3:23 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote:
> So even if an AM's table_tuple_insert() itself doesn't populate the
> transaction info into the slot handed to it, maybe as an optimization,
> it does not sound entirely unreasonable to expect that the AM's
> slot_getsysattr() callback returns it correctly when projecting a
> target list containing system columns.

The "maybe as an optimization" refers to the part of the sentence that
comes before it.  That is, I mean table_tuple_insert() may choose to
not populate the transaction info in the slot as an optimization.

-- 
Amit Langote
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Commits

  1. Don't crash on reference to an un-available system column.