Re: [HACKERS] Bogus "Non-functional update" notices

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Vadim Mikheev <vadim(at)krs(dot)ru>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Bogus "Non-functional update" notices
Date: 1998-07-29 14:40:59
Message-ID: 7393.901723259@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Vadim Mikheev <vadim(at)krs(dot)ru> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Another thing that struck me while looking at the update code is that
>> an update deletes the old tuple value, then inserts the new value,
>> but it doesn't bother to delete any old index entries pointing at the
>> old tuple. ISTM that after a while, there are going to be a lot of old
>> index entries pointing at dead tuples ... or, perhaps, at *some other*
>> live tuple, if the space the dead tuple occupied has been reused for
>> something else.

> Vacuum deletes index tuples before deleting heap ones...

Right, but until you've done a vacuum, what's stopping the code from
returning wrong tuples? I assume this stuff actually works, I just
couldn't see where the dead index entries get rejected.

regards, tom lane

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas G. Lockhart 1998-07-29 14:54:50 Informix on Linux
Previous Message Robert Nosko 1998-07-29 14:30:44