Re: [HACKERS] [NOVICE] systable_getnext_ordered

2011-02-01 Thread YAMAMOTO Takashi
hi, I wrote: y...@mwd.biglobe.ne.jp (YAMAMOTO Takashi) writes: after systable_getnext_ordered returned NULL, is it ok to call it again? I wouldn't rely on it working. i'm wondering because inv_truncate seems to do it and expecting NULL. Hmm, that may well be a bug. Have you tested

Re: [HACKERS] [NOVICE] systable_getnext_ordered

2011-02-01 Thread YAMAMOTO Takashi
hi, thanks for taking a look. y...@mwd.biglobe.ne.jp (YAMAMOTO Takashi) writes: the attached patch is to avoid unnecessary detoast'ing and EOF marker pages when possible. does it make sense? The blob page size is already chosen not to allow for out-of-line storage, not to mention that

Re: [HACKERS] [NOVICE] systable_getnext_ordered

2011-01-31 Thread Tom Lane
y...@mwd.biglobe.ne.jp (YAMAMOTO Takashi) writes: the attached patch is to avoid unnecessary detoast'ing and EOF marker pages when possible. does it make sense? The blob page size is already chosen not to allow for out-of-line storage, not to mention that pg_largeobject doesn't have a TOAST

Re: [HACKERS] [NOVICE] systable_getnext_ordered

2011-01-26 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: y...@mwd.biglobe.ne.jp (YAMAMOTO Takashi) writes: after systable_getnext_ordered returned NULL, is it ok to call it again? I wouldn't rely on it working. i'm wondering because inv_truncate seems to do it and expecting NULL. Hmm, that may well be a bug. Have you tested it? I