public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Jeff Davis <[email protected]>
To: Greg Burd <[email protected]>
To: Nathan Bossart <[email protected]>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Expanding HOT updates for expression and partial indexes
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2026 14:11:53 -0700
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<akciabcu3b2hchj7adxhu4kovfaozp2pcn2z7sdljfthxcyg4o@7e6sfyzipvyy>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<abMjC0jifWB0cs5F@nathan>
<[email protected]>
On Thu, 2026-03-12 at 17:31 -0400, Greg Burd wrote:
> Other than the heap_modify_tuple() calls I don't know of something
> that allows for direct changes but that doesn't matter, 0002 will
> scan and pick up those attributes even if we introduce a new
> modification path in the future (as intended).
Why do extra work in ExecBRUpdateTriggers() to eliminate the false
negative case if we don't rely on it anyway? If we do need to rely on
it in subsequent patches, then we need to be sure, right?
I guess I'm confused about whether 0002 is introducing a new guarantee
or if it's just a convenient place to eliminate one source of false
negatives.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
view thread (44+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Expanding HOT updates for expression and partial indexes
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox