Re: Concurrency bug in amcheck

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
To: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Michail Nikolaev <michail(dot)nikolaev(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Concurrency bug in amcheck
Date: 2020-08-04 23:19:03
Message-ID: CAH2-Wz=fEM2DTdNM6f3YOttEqxTWT=nBXA5--S-K0VcD2xeQoQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 4:18 PM Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Pushed. Comment is changed as you suggested. But I've replaced "last
> pivot tuple" with "remaining tuples", because the page can also have a
> high key, which is also a tuple.

You're right, of course.

Thanks again
--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alexander Korotkov 2020-08-04 23:59:14 Re: LSM tree for Postgres
Previous Message Alexander Korotkov 2020-08-04 23:17:48 Re: Concurrency bug in amcheck