Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Think I see a btree vacuuming bug

From: "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,"Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Think I see a btree vacuuming bug
Date: 2002-08-27 07:14:41
Message-ID: 46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA4961E64@m0114.s-mxs.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> > Could the index scan be made to
> > handle cases where the index tuple it was stopped on is gone?
> 
> Don't see how.  With no equal keys, you could test each tuple you scan
> over to see if it's > the expected key; but that would slow things down
> tremendously I fear.  In any case it fails completely when there are
> equal keys, since you could not tell where in a run of equal keys to
> resume scanning.  You really have to find the exact index tuple you
> stopped on, AFAICS.

Won't it still point to the same heap page and slot ? That additional info 
should be sufficient to find the exact index tuple. 
And it usually won't be that far away, no ?

Andreas

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Christopher Kings-LynneDate: 2002-08-27 07:33:37
Subject: REINDEX ALL and CLUSTER ALL
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-08-27 06:01:01
Subject: Re: MemoryContextAlloc: invalid request size 1934906735

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group