Hi, On 2019-05-18 06:14:15 +0530, Ashutosh Sharma wrote: > On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 1:34 AM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > Considering that we can have MAX_BUFFERED_TUPLES slots in each multi-insert > buffer and we do flush the buffer after MAX_BUFFERED_TUPLES tuples have > been stored, it seems unlikely that we would ever come across a situation > where one partition would need to reuse the slot of another partition.
I don't think this is right. Obviously it'd not be without a bit more changes, but we definitely *should* try to reuse slots from other partitions (including the root partition if compatible). Creating them isn't that cheap, compared to putting slots onto a freelist for a wihle. > Also, from a consistency point, it seems the caller doesn't need to know > > whether all the necessary information is in the ResultRelInfo and not in > > CopyMultiInsertInfo for *some* of the CopyMultiInsertInfo functions. > > > > > I actually feel that the function name itself is not correct here, it > appears to be confusing and inconsistent considering the kind of work that > it is doing. I think, the function name should have been CopyMultiInsert > *Buffer*NextFreeSlot() instead of CopyMultiInsert*Info*NextFreeSlot(). What > do you think, Andres, David, Alvaro ? Unless somebody else presses back hard against doing so *soon*, I'm going to close this open issue. I don't think it's worth spending further time arguing about a few characters. Greetings, Andres Freund
