On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 8:46 PM, Anastasia Lubennikova > <lubennikov...@gmail.com> wrote: >> The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: >> make installcheck-world: tested, passed >> Implements feature: tested, passed >> Spec compliant: tested, passed >> Documentation: tested, passed >> >> Hi, thank you for the patch. >> Results are very promising. Do you see any drawbacks of this feature or >> something that requires more testing? >> > > I think you can focus on the handling of array scan keys for testing. > In general, one of my colleagues has shown interest in testing this > patch and I think he has tested as well but never posted his findings. > I will request him to share his findings and what kind of tests he has > done, if any. > >> I'm willing to oo a review. > > Thanks, that will be helpful. > > >> I saw the discussion about parameters in the thread above. And I agree that >> we'd better concentrate >> on the patch itself and add them later if necessary. >> >> 1. Can't we simply use "if (scan->parallel_scan != NULL)" instead of >> xs_temp_snap flag? >> >> + if (scan->xs_temp_snap) >> + UnregisterSnapshot(scan->xs_snapshot); >> > > I agree with what Rober has told in his reply. >
Typo. /Rober/Robert Haas Thanks to Michael Paquier for noticing it and informing me offline. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
