| From: | Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Subject: | Re: Corrupted btree index on HEAD because of covering indexes |
| Date: | 2018-04-20 14:18:12 |
| Message-ID: | 24ac23bf-bf00-229c-8ef3-f60542cab627@sigaev.ru |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>> Should we use BTreeInnerTupleGetDownLink() as soon as we use
>> BTreeInnerTupleSetDownLink() for setting this?
>> Or even invent BTreeInnerTupleDownLinkIsValid() macro?
> I am not sure. Here we actually store UP link - to top parent to remove. I'm
> afraid using BTreeInnerTupleGetDownLink/BTreeInnerTupleSetDownLink could cause a
> confusion, in other hand, introducing
> TreeInnerTupleGetUpLink/BTreeInnerTupleSetUpLink seems over-engineering
>
After close look I change my opinion. To have a clean code it's much better to
have new pair get/set macroses specialy to manage link to top pare during page
deletion. This removes last naked usage of
ItemPointer(SetInvalid/IsInvalid/GetBlockNumberNoCheck) and uses self-described
macroses. Patch is attached.
--
Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru
WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| vacuum_nbtree-v3.patch | text/x-patch | 6.5 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2018-04-20 15:32:07 | Re: [HACKERS] proposal: schema variables |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-04-20 13:58:06 | Re: SHOW ALL does not honor pg_read_all_settings membership |