| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Setting pd_lower in GIN metapage |
| Date: | 2017-09-14 10:47:37 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqRrAjTt31zYV4NX1g=-KhttrhdKyiC=1=sS6K7QNEUNWQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Why do we need to change metapage at every place for btree ...
I have been hunting for some time places where meta buffers were
marked as dirtied and logged. So in the effort, I think that my hands
and mind got hotter, forgetting that pd_lower is set there for ages.
Of course feel free to ignore that.
> ... or hash?
> Any index that is upgraded should have pd_lower set, do you have any
> case in mind where it won't be set? For hash, if someone upgrades
> from a version lower than 9.6, it might not have set, but we already
> give warning to reindex the hash indexes upgraded from a version lower
> than 10.
Ah yes. You do set pd_lower in 10 as well for hash... So that will be
fine. So remains SpGist as a slacking AM based on the current patches.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dmitriy Sarafannikov | 2017-09-14 11:20:14 | Re: Allow GiST opcalsses without compress\decompres functions |
| Previous Message | Anthony Bykov | 2017-09-14 10:33:22 | Re: issue: record or row variable cannot be part of multiple-item INTO list |