| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andreas Joseph Krogh <andreas(at)visena(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ERROR: failed to add item to the index page |
| Date: | 2019-05-02 19:38:02 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WzmhUdiL-=wqnyDQBiiJ46mFeuYNPH-RsCrdU-+9EDNdnQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 6:28 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> Attached is a much more polished version of the same patch. I tried to
> make clear how the "page full" test (the test that has been fixed to
> take heap TID space for high key into account) is related to other
> close-by code, such as the tuple space limit budget within
> _bt_check_third_page(), and the code that sets up an actual call to
> _bt_truncate().
Pushed, though final version does the test a little differently. It
adds the required heap TID space to itupsz, rather than subtracting it
from pgspc. This is actually representative of the underlying logic,
and avoids unsigned underflow.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andreas Joseph Krogh | 2019-05-02 19:41:46 | Re: ERROR: failed to add item to the index page |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2019-05-02 18:06:14 | Re: How to estimate the shared memory size required for parallel scan? |