| From: | Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)stack(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Ivan Panchenko <ivan(at)xray(dot)sai(dot)msu(dot)ru> |
| Subject: | Re: strange update problem with 7.2.1 |
| Date: | 2002-05-28 07:37:29 |
| Message-ID: | 3CF333B9.7060306@stack.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)stack(dot)net> writes:
>
>>>Yeah, but the update case is inserting more entries into the index.
>>>I'm wondering if that causes the index scan's state to get corrupted
>>>so that it misses scanning some entries.
>>>
>
>>Thank you, Tom. You give me a direction for looking. Attached patch fix
>>the problem with broken state.
>>
>
> Hmm, is this patch really correct? Removing the gistadjscans() call
> from gistSplit seems wrong to me --- won't that miss reporting splits
> on leaf pages? Or does this not matter for some reason?
>
gistadjscans() is moving to gistlayerinsert. gistadjscans() must be called for
parent of splitted page, but gistSplit doesn't know parent of current page and
gistlayerinsert return status of its action: inserted and (may be) splitted. So
we can call gistadjscans(GIST_SPLIT) in gistlayerinsert when it's need.
--
Teodor Sigaev
teodor(at)stack(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Meskes | 2002-05-28 07:40:03 | Re: Replication status |
| Previous Message | Louis-David Mitterrand | 2002-05-28 07:20:42 | wierd AND condition evaluation for plpgsql |