| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Hot Standby 0.2.1 |
| Date: | 2009-09-21 13:01:52 |
| Message-ID: | 1253538112.4449.44.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2009-09-21 at 13:50 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> The only bug I've found
!
> is this that we seem to be missing conflict
> resolution for GiST index tuples deleted by the kill_prior_tuples
> mechanism. Unless I'm missing something, we need similar handling there
> that we have in b-tree.
OK, I agree with that. Straightforward change. Thanks very much.
I marked the comment to indicate that the handling for GIST and GIN
indexes looked dubious to me also. I had the earlier "it is safe"
comments but that was before we looked at the kill prior tuples issue.
Re-reading code for GIN also, I note that there isn't any further work
because we don't kill prior tuples ever. Also, there is no special
handling of the GIN b-tree posting tree because VACUUM scans that in
logical sequence, rather than the physical sequence in nbtree.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-09-21 13:23:01 | Re: Hot Standby 0.2.1 |
| Previous Message | Bernd Helmle | 2009-09-21 11:42:21 | Re: TODO item: Allow more complex user/database default GUC settings |