Horton
Menu

Re: Ignoring BRIN for HOT udpates seems broken

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>

View thread
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2022-06-06T07:28:52Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
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.
--
Michael

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