On Sun, Apr 2, 2023 at 3:47 AM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2023-04-02 03:37:19 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 1, 2023 at 8:21 AM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > > Given that the in-tree state has been broken for a week, I think it > > > probably > > > is time to revert the commits that already went in. > > > > The revised patch is attached. The most notable change is getting rid > > of LazyTupleTableSlot. Also get rid of complex computations to detect > > how to initialize LazyTupleTableSlot. Instead just pass the oldSlot > > as an argument of ExecUpdate() and ExecDelete(). The price for this > > is just preallocation of ri_oldTupleSlot before calling ExecDelete(). > > The slot allocation is quite cheap. After all wrappers it's > > table_slot_callbacks(), which is very cheap, single palloc() and few > > fields initialization. It doesn't seem reasonable to introduce an > > infrastructure to evade this. > > > > I think patch resolves all the major issues you've highlighted. Even > > if there are some minor things missed, I'd prefer to push this rather > > than reverting the whole work. > > Shrug. You're designing new APIs, days before the feature freeze. This just > doesn't seem ready in time for 16. I certainly won't have time to look at it > sufficiently in the next 5 days.
OK. Reverted. ------ Regards, Alexander Korotkov
