Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2024 20:20:17 -0500
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	"Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Large expressions in indexes can't be stored (non-TOASTable)
Message-ID: <Zw8U0YU_fu2pcXs6@nathan>
References: <adb7421f-eaf4-878a-6742-576fc6bf0d8f@gmail.com>
 <Zu2oJtMI2avvjmtl@nathan>
 <e012fb69-ca34-7e0e-3a33-b16d9737e526@gmail.com>
 <ZvGOPdGAronxOfmf@nathan>
 <ZvI-WXcaFXuj1Dvp@paquier.xyz>
 <ZvMSUPOqUU-VNADN@nathan>
 <ZvOMBhlb5zrBCG5p@paquier.xyz>
 <ZwV_DBQa8Qw6kKY2@nathan>
 <Zw14zoBCg-zGu1mi@nathan>
 <Zw8E73_nCk0DbO18@paquier.xyz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Zw8E73_nCk0DbO18@paquier.xyz>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/Zw8U0YU_fu2pcXs6%40nathan>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 09:12:31AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> -   if (!ctx->rel->rd_rel->reltoastrelid)
> +   if (!OidIsValid(RelationGetToastRelid(ctx->rel)))
> 
> This set of diffs in 0002 is a nice cleanup.  I'd wish for relying
> less on zero comparitons when assuming that InvalidOid is in use.

I'm wondering if there's any concern about this one causing back-patching
pain.  If so, I can just add the macro for use in new code.

> +static inline void
> +AssertHasSnapshotForToast(Relation rel)
> +{
> +	/* bootstrap mode in particular breaks this rule */
> +	if (!IsNormalProcessingMode())
> +		return;
> +
> +	/* if the relation doesn't have a TOAST table, we are good */
> +	if (!OidIsValid(RelationGetToastRelid(rel)))
> +		return;
> +
> +	Assert(HaveRegisteredOrActiveSnapshot());
> +}
> 
> Using a separate inlined routine is indeed cleaner as you have
> documented the assumptions behind the check.  Wouldn't it be better to
> use a USE_ASSERT_CHECKING block?  These two checks for normal
> processing and toastrelid are cheap lookups, but we don't need them at
> all in non-assert paths, so I'd suggest to ignore them entirely for
> the non-USE_ASSERT_CHECKING case.

I assume all of this will get compiled out in non-USE_ASSERT_CHECKING
builds as-is, but I see no problem with surrounding it with an #ifdef to be
sure.

-- 
nathan