On 04/01/18 01:19, Tom Lane wrote:
> Chapman Flack <c...@anastigmatix.net> writes:
>> If I copy an out-of-line, on-disk TOAST pointer into a memory context
>> with transaction lifetime, with an eye to detoasting it later in the
>> same transaction, are there circumstances where it wouldn't work?
> Should be safe *as long as you hold onto a snapshot that can see the
> toast value's parent row*.  Otherwise, it's not.
> For a counterexample, see the changes we had to make to avoid depending
> on out-of-line toast values in the catcaches, commit 08e261cbc.

Thanks. I think I see two approaches happening in that commit: retaining
a snapshot, if the tuples will be used within the transaction, or eagerly
detoasting, when persisting a holdable portal so tuples can be used after
the transaction.

Please bear with me as I check my understanding of snapshot management
by looking at PersistHoldablePortal(). There's a
PushActiveSnapshot(queryDesc->snapshot) in there. Is that because:

(a) that snapshot might not be on the active stack at this point, and it
    needs to be be there to keep it alive during this executor re-run, or

(b) it's known to be somewhere on the active stack already, but not
    necessarily on top, and needs to be pushed so it is topmost while
    re-running this executor (does the top snapshot on the active stack
    affect which tuples the executor sees? or is this stack's only purpose
    to keep snapshots alive?), or

(c) it's known to be somewhere on the stack already, but needs to be
    be pushed to make sure some stack-depth invariant is preserved
    (perhaps because of an implied pop in case of an error), or

(d) some other reason I haven't thought of ?

I *think* I'm smart enough to rule out choice (a), because it wouldn't
make sense to have queryDesc->snapshot refer to a snapshot that isn't
already on the stack (unless it's also been registered, in which case,
why would it need to be pushed on the stack too?), as then I would be
reckless to assume it's still alive to *be* pushed. Am I close?

I haven't yet gone to track down the code that assigns a snapshot to


Reply via email to