| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Rahila Syed <rahila(dot)syed(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Making index_set_state_flags() transactional |
| Date: | 2020-09-14 04:58:56 |
| Message-ID: | 20200914045856.GB2183@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 06:42:09PM +0300, Anastasia Lubennikova wrote:
> I agree that transactional update in index_set_state_flags() is good for
> both cases, that you mentioned and don't see any restrictions. It seems that
> not doing this before was just a loose end, as the comment from 813fb03
> patch clearly stated, that it is safe to make this update transactional.
>
> The patch itself looks clear and committable.
Thanks for double-checking, Anastasia. Committed.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2020-09-14 05:17:34 | Re: typo in snapmgr.c and procarray.c |
| Previous Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2020-09-14 04:48:55 | Re: Print logical WAL message content |