On 04/23/2015 10:53 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-04-23 12:45:59 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 12:55 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
I think you misread my statement: I'm saying we don't need the new
argument anymore, even if we still do the super-deletion in
heap_delete(). Now that the speculative insertion will not be visible
(as in seen on a tuple they could delete) to other backends we can just
do the super deletion if we see that the tuple is a promise one.
I disagree. I think it's appropriate that the one and only "super"
heap_delete() caller make a point of indicating that that's what it's
doing. The cost is only that the two other such callers must say that
they're not doing it. Super deletion is a special thing, that logical
decoding knows all about for example, and I think it's appropriate
that callers ask explicitly.
Unconvinced. Not breaking an API has its worth.
The heapam API is not that stable, we've added arguments to those
functions every once in a while, and I don't recall any complaints. So
I'm with Peter that super-deletion should be requested explicitly by the
caller.
That said, I'd actually like to see a separate heap_super_delete()
function for that, rather than piggybacking on heap_delete(). It's a
quite different operation. There'll be some duplication, but seems
better than a maze of if-else's in heap_delete.
- Heikki
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
