| From: | Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, florisvannee(at)optiver(dot)com, pg(at)bowt(dot)ie, jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com, david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com, jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com, rafia(dot)pghackers(at)gmail(dot)com, jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com, bhushan(dot)uparkar(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru |
| Subject: | Re: Index Skip Scan |
| Date: | 2020-02-14 12:18:20 |
| Message-ID: | 20200214121820.xvvrkdbykkygfs65@localhost |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 05:23:13PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> The first attached (renamed to .txt not to confuse the cfbots) is a
> small patch that makes sure if _bt_readpage is called with the proper
> condition as written in its comment, that is, caller must have pinned
> and read-locked so->currPos.buf. This patch reveals many instances of
> breakage of the contract.
Thanks! On top of which patch version one can apply it? I'm asking
because I believe I've addressed similar issues in the last version, and
the last proposed diff (after resolving some conflicts) breaks tests for
me, so not sure if I miss something.
At the same time if you and Tomas strongly agree that it actually makes
sense to make moving forward/reading backward case work with dead tuples
correctly, I'll take a shot and try to teach the code around _bt_skip to
do what is required for that. I can merge your changes there and we can
see what would be the result.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2020-02-14 12:29:34 | Re: LOCK TABLE and DROP TABLE on temp tables of other sessions |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2020-02-14 11:56:48 | Re: Parallel copy |