| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Konstantin Knizhnik <knizhnik(at)garret(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Orphan page in _bt_split |
| Date: | 2025-09-04 00:55:50 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WzkGeQUnKB93wA72_4KiXsgsoMqSqMKfDVuVr3BfO=8h+w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 2:32 AM Konstantin Knizhnik <knizhnik(at)garret(dot)ru> wrote:
> But sooner or later vacuum will be called for this index and will
> traverse this page, will not it?
> There is not other way to reuse this page without deleting it or I am
> missing something?
That's true. But VACUUM won't even attempt to delete it unless it can
also remove all of the index tuples. Which, in general, probably won't
happen (it happened with your test case, but that's probably not
typical).
> But vacuum is not just logging this message. It throws error which means
> that vacuum for this relation will be performed any more.
What error? You showed an assertion failure, but that won't be hit in
release builds.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Steven Niu | 2025-09-04 02:31:34 | 回复: Fix segfault while accessing half-initialized hash table in pgstat_shmem.c |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2025-09-04 00:39:43 | Re: Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type on Illumos |