Minor comment update for DELETE

Started by Simon Riggsalmost 21 years ago3 messagespatches
Jump to latest
#1Simon Riggs
simon@2ndQuadrant.com

Minor comment update.

The line changed is in direct contradiction with the comment (and
reality) of the code below this. The opposed comment starts at line
1548:

/*
* Note: Normally one would think that we have to delete index tuples
* associated with the heap tuple now..
*
* ... but in POSTGRES, we have no need to do this because the vacuum
daemon
* automatically opens an index scan and deletes index tuples when it
* finds deleted heap tuples. -cim 9/27/89
*/

Seems like its been wrong for a while...

Best Regards, Simon Riggs

Attachments:

delcomment.patchtext/x-patch; charset=UTF-8; name=delcomment.patchDownload+3-3
#2Neil Conway
neilc@samurai.com
In reply to: Simon Riggs (#1)
Re: Minor comment update for DELETE

On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 00:15 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:

Minor comment update.

Applied with adjustments.

BTW, I noticed the following comment a few lines down in execMain.c
(circa line 1564):

* note: we can't run UPDATE queries with transactions
* off because UPDATEs are actually INSERTs and our
* scan will mistakenly loop forever, updating the tuple
* it just inserted.. This should be fixed but until it
* is, we don't want to get stuck in an infinite loop
* which corrupts your database..

This seems obsolete; I'll remove it shortly barring any objections.

-Neil

#3Tom Lane
tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
In reply to: Neil Conway (#2)
Re: Minor comment update for DELETE

Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:

BTW, I noticed the following comment a few lines down in execMain.c
(circa line 1564):

* note: we can't run UPDATE queries with transactions
* off because UPDATEs are actually INSERTs and our
* scan will mistakenly loop forever, updating the tuple
* it just inserted.. This should be fixed but until it
* is, we don't want to get stuck in an infinite loop
* which corrupts your database..

This seems obsolete; I'll remove it shortly barring any objections.

No, this is still correct, note the bootstrap-mode test at the start of
the function.

regards, tom lane