Tom Lane wrote:
> Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)stack(dot)net> writes:
>>>Yeah, but the update case is inserting more entries into the index.
>>>I'm wondering if that causes the index scan's state to get corrupted
>>>so that it misses scanning some entries.
>>Thank you, Tom. You give me a direction for looking. Attached patch fix
>>the problem with broken state.
> 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.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Michael Meskes||Date: 2002-05-28 07:40:03|
|Subject: Re: Replication status|
|Previous:||From: Louis-David Mitterrand||Date: 2002-05-28 07:20:42|
|Subject: wierd AND condition evaluation for plpgsql|