On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 5:16 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 8:41 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: > >
> 5. Shouldn't we add a check in table_scan_sample_next_block and > table_scan_sample_next_tuple APIs as well? I am not sure that we need to do that, Because generally, we want to avoid getting any wrong system table tuple which we can use for taking some decision or decode tuple. But, I don't think that table_scan_sample falls under that category. > > Apart from this, I have also fixed one defect raised by my colleague > > Neha Sharma. That issue is the incomplete toast tuple flag was not > > reset when the main table tuple was inserted through speculative > > insert and due to that data was not streamed even if later we were > > getting speculative confirm because incomplete toast flag was never > > reset. This patch also includes the fix for the issue raised by Erik. > > > > It would be better if you can mention which all patches contain the > changes as it will be easier to review the fix. Fix1: v17-0010-Bugfix-handling-of-incomplete-toast-tuple.patch Fix2: patch: v17-0002-Issue-individual-invalidations-with-wal_level-lo.patch I will work on other comments and send the updated patch. -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
