On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 1:32 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > I rebased this patch series; here's v09. No substantive changes from v08. > I made sure the tree still compiles after each commit. > > I did look at 0002 again (and renamed the members of the new struct by > adding a p_ prefix, as well as fixing the references to the old names > that were in a few code comments here and there; I don't think these > changes are "substantive"), and ended up wondering why do we need that > change in the first place. According to the comment where the progress > restore function is called, it's because reorderbuffer.c uses a > subtransaction internally. But I went to look at reorderbuffer.c and > noticed that the subtransaction is only used "when using the SQL > function interface, because that creates a transaction already". So > maybe we should look into making REPACK use reorderbuffer without having > to open a transaction block. > > I didn't do anything about that, in particular I didn't actually try to > run REPACK to see whether the transaction is needed. I'll be looking at > that in the next couple of days.
Is there a README or a long comment in here someplace that is a good place to read to understand the overall design of this feature? -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
