Re: More vacuum.c refactoring

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: More vacuum.c refactoring
Дата
Msg-id 4018.1086902362@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на More vacuum.c refactoring  (Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg@aon.at>)
Ответы Re: More vacuum.c refactoring
Список pgsql-hackers
Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg@aon.at> writes:
> This code is very similar to vacuum_page().  The major difference is
> that vacuum_page() uses vacpage->offsets while the code in repair_frag()
> looks for MOVED_OFF bits in tuple headers.  AFAICS the tuples with the
> MOVED_OFF bit set are exactly those referenced by vacpage->offsets.

This does not make me comfortable.  You *think* that two different bits
of code are doing the same thing, so you want to hack up vacuum.c?  This
module is delicate code --- we've had tons of bugs there in the past
--- and no I have zero confidence that passing the regression tests
proves anything, because all those prior bugs passed the regression
tests.
        regards, tom lane


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: "Glen Parker"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Why frequently updated tables are an issue
Следующее
От: Bruce Momjian
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [PATCHES] serverlog function (log_destination file)