| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Vadim Mikheev <vmikheev(at)sectorbase(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Theory about XLogFlush startup failures |
| Date: | 2002-01-15 04:58:16 |
| Message-ID: | 22510.1011070696@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I know PageRepairFragmentation is real paranoid about this, because I
>> made it so recently. I suppose it might be worth adding some more
>> sanity checks to PageAddItem, maybe PageZero (is that ever called on a
>> pre-existing page?), and PageIndexTupleDelete. Seems like that should
>> about cover it --- noplace else inserts items on disk pages or
>> reshuffles disk page contents, AFAIK.
> What about PageGetItem ? It seems to be able to touch the item
> via HeapTupleSatisfies etc.
Hmm. Strictly speaking I think you are right, but I'm hesitant to add a
bunch of new tests to PageGetItem --- that is much more of a hot spot
than PageAddItem, and it'll cost us something in speed I fear.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-01-15 05:05:44 | pg_upgrade activated? |
| Previous Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2002-01-15 04:52:01 | Re: Theory about XLogFlush startup failures |