On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 11:10 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Isn't it better if we use option 2) at all places as then we won't > >> need any special check inside ReorderBufferChangeMemoryUpdate()? > > > > > > If we want to do this then be careful about > REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_INTERNAL_TUPLECID change. Basically, > ReorderBufferChangeMemoryUpdate() ignores this type of change whereas > ReorderBufferChangeSize(), consider at least sizeof(ReorderBufferChange) > bytes to this change. So if we compute the size using > ReorderBufferChangeSize() outside of ReorderBufferChangeMemoryUpdate(), > then total size will be different from what we have now. Logically, we > should be ignoring/asserting REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_INTERNAL_TUPLECID in > ReorderBufferChangeSize(), because ReorderBufferChangeMemoryUpdate() is the > only caller for this function. > > > > Why can't we simply ignore it in ReorderBufferChangeMemoryUpdate() as > we are doing now? > Yeah right, we can actually do that, it doesn't matter even if we are passing the size from outside. -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
