From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
        Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
        Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>,
 vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>,
        Jerry Sievers <gsievers19@comcast.net>,
        Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>,
        pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: SegFault on 9.6.14
In-reply-to: 
 <CAA4eK1KzUD91YYPe3xj416TZQzP4Ubm=oQNt_e-KBiSBTDKd7A@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CA+hUKGK=dChcQtgf1-r73XEqDhW1VD32Tf9qDi39aYbjuE3mGA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190812190749.GA13961@alvherre.pgsql>
 <CA+TgmoZHcMqmwtnfW6X3gyJW84S5LxERVmNPobXtmrQkJh+x4A@mail.gmail.com>
 <14905.1565646513@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAA4eK1+NSijDZA3gBd+-y5CcM7hdvtRHPCrbXFPp1idPVMKBXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <4832.1565711932@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAA4eK1KzUD91YYPe3xj416TZQzP4Ubm=oQNt_e-KBiSBTDKd7A@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
	message dated "Wed, 14 Aug 2019 10:12:17 +0530"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <11300.1565758338.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 00:52:18 -0400
Message-ID: <11301.1565758338@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> writes:
> Another point which I am wondering is why can't we use the existing
> REWIND flag to solve the current issue, basically if we have access to
> that information in nodeLimit.c (ExecLimit), then can't we just pass
> down that to ExecShutdownNode?

The existing REWIND flag tells subnodes whether they should *optimize*
for getting rewound or not.  I don't recall right now (well past
midnight) why that seemed like a useful definition, but if you grep for
places that are paying attention to that flag, I'm sure you'll find out.

We probably don't want to give up that distinction --- if it had been
equally good to define the flag as a hard yes-or-no, I'm sure we would
have taken that definition, because it's simpler.

			regards, tom lane