Hello
Pavan Deolasee recently noted that a few of the HeapTupleHeaderIndicatesMovedPartitions calls added by commit 5db6df0c0117 are useless, since they are done after comparing t_self with t_ctid. That's because t_self can never be set to the magical values that indicate that the tuple moved partition. If the first test fails (so we know t_self equals t_ctid), necessarily the second test will also fail. So these checks can be removed and no harm is done. -- Álvaro Herrera 39°49'30"S 73°17'W |
Hi Alvaro, On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 10:14 PM Alvaro Herrera <[hidden email]> wrote: Hello The patch looks good to me. The existing coding pattern was a bit confusing and that's how I noticed it. So +1 for fixing it. Thanks, Pavan Pavan Deolasee |
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, passed Implements feature: tested, passed Spec compliant: not tested Documentation: not tested I wonder, why this patch hangs on commitfest for so long. The idea of the fix is clear, the code is correct and all tests pass, so, I move it to ReadyForCommitter status. The new status of this patch is: Ready for Committer |
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 04:42:26PM +0000, Anastasia Lubennikova wrote:
> I wonder, why this patch hangs on commitfest for so long. > The idea of the fix is clear, the code is correct and all tests pass, so, I move it to ReadyForCommitter status. > > The new status of this patch is: Ready for Committer So that's this patch: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/32/2941/. Alvaro is most likely going to take care of that, so let's wait for him. -- Michael |
On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 10:49:26AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> So that's this patch: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/32/2941/. > Alvaro is most likely going to take care of that, so let's wait for > him. Hearing nothing, I have looked at this stuff and the simplification makes sense. Any comments? I can see that ItemPointerSetMovedPartitions() in itemptr.h is not used in the code. Could it be better to change the comment in htup_details.h to mention HeapTupleHeaderSetMovedPartitions instead? Perhaps not worth bothering, just noticed this on the way. -- Michael |
On 2021-Feb-20, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 10:49:26AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > > So that's this patch: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/32/2941/. > > Alvaro is most likely going to take care of that, so let's wait for > > him. > > Hearing nothing, I have looked at this stuff and the simplification > makes sense. Any comments? No further comments ... I think the patch is simple enough. Thanks for looking -- I'll get it pushed on Monday or so. > I can see that ItemPointerSetMovedPartitions() in itemptr.h is not > used in the code. Could it be better to change the comment in > htup_details.h to mention HeapTupleHeaderSetMovedPartitions instead? > Perhaps not worth bothering, just noticed this on the way. Hmm. Alternatively, maybe it'd make sense to change HeapTupleHeaderSetMovedPartition to use ItemPointerSetMovedPartitions instead of doing ItemPointerSet directly. But that looks mostly pointless, since the extensibility aspect of this interface has been superseded by table AM work. I agree we should just remove the macro and update the comment as you suggest. -- Álvaro Herrera Valdivia, Chile |
On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 12:25:58PM -0300, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2021-Feb-20, Michael Paquier wrote: >> Hearing nothing, I have looked at this stuff and the simplification >> makes sense. Any comments? > > No further comments ... I think the patch is simple enough. Thanks for > looking -- I'll get it pushed on Monday or so. Sounds good to me. >> I can see that ItemPointerSetMovedPartitions() in itemptr.h is not >> used in the code. Could it be better to change the comment in >> htup_details.h to mention HeapTupleHeaderSetMovedPartitions instead? >> Perhaps not worth bothering, just noticed this on the way. > > Hmm. Alternatively, maybe it'd make sense to change > HeapTupleHeaderSetMovedPartition to use ItemPointerSetMovedPartitions > instead of doing ItemPointerSet directly. But that looks mostly > pointless, since the extensibility aspect of this interface has been > superseded by table AM work. I agree we should just remove the macro > and update the comment as you suggest. -- Michael |
On 2021-Feb-21, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 12:25:58PM -0300, Álvaro Herrera wrote: > > Hmm. Alternatively, maybe it'd make sense to change > > HeapTupleHeaderSetMovedPartition to use ItemPointerSetMovedPartitions > > instead of doing ItemPointerSet directly. But that looks mostly > > pointless, since the extensibility aspect of this interface has been > > superseded by table AM work. I agree we should just remove the macro > > and update the comment as you suggest. > > Thanks. So you will do this change in the same commit, right? I changed my mind on this after noticing that ItemPointerIndicatesMovedPartitions has a few callers; leaving the interface incomplete/asymmetric would be worse. So I propose to do this. diff --git a/src/include/access/htup_details.h b/src/include/access/htup_details.h index 7c62852e7f..86b3622b5e 100644 --- a/src/include/access/htup_details.h +++ b/src/include/access/htup_details.h @@ -443,11 +443,10 @@ do { \ ) #define HeapTupleHeaderIndicatesMovedPartitions(tup) \ - (ItemPointerGetOffsetNumber(&(tup)->t_ctid) == MovedPartitionsOffsetNumber && \ - ItemPointerGetBlockNumberNoCheck(&(tup)->t_ctid) == MovedPartitionsBlockNumber) + ItemPointerIndicatesMovedPartitions(&(tup)->t_ctid) #define HeapTupleHeaderSetMovedPartitions(tup) \ - ItemPointerSet(&(tup)->t_ctid, MovedPartitionsBlockNumber, MovedPartitionsOffsetNumber) + ItemPointerSetMovedPartitions(&(tup)->t_ctid) #define HeapTupleHeaderGetDatumLength(tup) \ VARSIZE(tup) -- Álvaro Herrera Valdivia, Chile "¿Cómo puedes confiar en algo que pagas y que no ves, y no confiar en algo que te dan y te lo muestran?" (Germán Poo) |
On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 05:15:57PM -0300, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> I changed my mind on this after noticing that > ItemPointerIndicatesMovedPartitions has a few callers; leaving the > interface incomplete/asymmetric would be worse. So I propose to do > this. Doing that looks fine to me as well. -- Michael |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |