Hi, On 2014-04-22 20:22:23 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > And for that matter, it's a bit silly to be testing make_tuple_indirect > in a BEFORE INSERT/UPDATE trigger, because even if the tuple gets out > of the trigger without being flattened, it will certainly get flattened > mere nanoseconds later before it gets written out to disk. (If it did > not, the test case would fail altogether, since the indirect values > in memory only survive for the length of the current transaction.)
Well, that's part of what it's essentially testing. We better not end up with a indirect datum, pointing to memory after all, ending up in a disk tuple. > So I'm wondering exactly what use-case this test is supposed to represent. Testing stuff I was concerned could break without tests. Especially as this was committed before the rest of the decoding stuff was. > Or is the whole thing just a toy anyway? Because the more I look at that > patch, the less it looks like it could do anything useful, short of adding > a ton of infrastructure that's not there now. Indirect toast tuples are actively used in logical decoding. So there is a usecase. I think there's further potential uses for both the infrastructure for further toast types in general and specifically indirect toast tuples. But we'll see. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
