On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 9:27 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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. >
Hmm, I am asking a check similar to what you have in function table_scan_bitmap_next_block(), can't we have that one? BTW, I noticed a below spurious line removal in the patch we are talking about. +/* * These are updated by GetSnapshotData. We initialize them this way * for the convenience of TransactionIdIsInProgress: even in bootstrap * mode, we don't want it to say that BootstrapTransactionId is in progress. @@ -2043,7 +2055,6 @@ SetupHistoricSnapshot(Snapshot historic_snapshot, HTAB *tuplecids) tuplecid_data = tuplecids; } - -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
