Re: pg_amcheck contrib application

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: pg_amcheck contrib application
Дата
Msg-id 988870.1616528688@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: pg_amcheck contrib application  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>)
Ответы Re: pg_amcheck contrib application  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> writes:
> That being said, I should make _bt_lock_subtree_parent() return false
> and back out of page deletion without raising an error in the case
> where we really cannot locate a valid downlink. We really ought to
> soldier on when that happens, since we'll do that for a bunch of other
> reasons already. I believe that the only reason we throw an error
> today is for parity with the page split case (the main
> _bt_getstackbuf() call). But this isn't the same situation at all --
> this is VACUUM.

> I will make this change to HEAD soon, barring objections.

+1.  Not deleting the upper page seems better than the alternatives.

            regards, tom lane



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Peter Geoghegan
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: pg_amcheck contrib application
Следующее
От: Jim Finnerty
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: insensitive collations