| From: | Denis Perchine <dyp(at)perchine(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Small fix for inv_getsize |
| Date: | 2000-11-02 17:02:23 |
| Message-ID: | 0011022302230F.31936@dyp.perchine.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
> > Just realized that inv_getsize is a little bit wrong :-)). It just get
> > the first page, not last
> > Here is the patch which will fix the behavior.
>
> No it doesn't; it's a loop, and your patch will change nothing. Your
> original version tried to stop after fetching one tuple, which was
> wrong because of visibility considerations.
>
> Now that I think about it, this code could do a two-key scan backwards
> and stop after finding the first (last) valid tuple, but that's more
> than a one-line change.
Actual logic is to find the maximum of pageno, for specified oid.
I do index scan on 2-keys index, specifying only one key as constraint...
If I do index scan forward I will get the smallest pageno first...
Otherwise I get the highest pageno... And this is what I want...
Or I get something wrong? Isn't this how order by on index is done?
--
Sincerely Yours,
Denis Perchine
----------------------------------
E-Mail: dyp(at)perchine(dot)com
HomePage: http://www.perchine.com/dyp/
FidoNet: 2:5000/120.5
----------------------------------
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-11-02 17:32:38 | Re: Small fix for inv_getsize |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-11-02 16:49:38 | Re: Small fix for inv_getsize |