| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Subject: | Re: amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool) |
| Date: | 2016-03-11 21:47:23 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZQZKjsEsPL_41p9zpppk5ZHfGC8waWzNtU5SdakH0PB2g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> You could have a race, where
> there was a concurrent page deletion of the left sibling of the child
> page, then a concurrent insertion into the newly expanded keyspace of
> the parent. Therefore, the downlink in the parent (which is the
> "target", to use the patch's terminology) would not be a lower bound
> on items in the page.
Excuse me: I meant the newly expanded keyspace of the *child*. (The
parent's keyspace would have covered everything. It's naturally far
larger than either child's keyspace, since it typically has several
hundred pages.)
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joel Jacobson | 2016-03-11 21:48:36 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Provide much better wait information in pg_stat_activity. |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2016-03-11 21:41:19 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Provide much better wait information in pg_stat_activity. |