Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)stack(dot)net> writes:
>> Hmm, is this patch really correct? Removing the gistadjscans() call
>> from gistSplit seems wrong to me --- won't that miss reporting splits
>> on leaf pages? Or does this not matter for some reason?
> gistadjscans() is moving to gistlayerinsert. gistadjscans() must be
> called for parent of splitted page, but gistSplit doesn't know parent
> of current page and gistlayerinsert return status of its action:
> inserted and (may be) splitted. So we can call
> gistadjscans(GIST_SPLIT) in gistlayerinsert when it's need.
But gistSplit is recursive. Is there no need to worry about the
additional splits it might do internally?
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Kovacs Zoltan||Date: 2002-05-28 13:53:34|
|Subject: cache lookup failed: hack pg_* tables?|
|Previous:||From: Joel Burton||Date: 2002-05-28 13:09:04|
|Subject: Re: wierd AND condition evaluation for plpgsql|