Обсуждение: Wrong Assert in PageIndexMultiDelete?
Hi, hackers!
I am trying to create new index access method.
And I found strange Assert in PageIndexMultiDelete function.
Is '<' sign is correct? I thougt it should be '<='.
Is it a bug or just my misunderstanding?
Best regards,
Lubennikova Anastasia
Anastasia Lubennikova <lubennikovaav@gmail.com> writes: > I am trying to create new index access method. > And I found strange Assert in PageIndexMultiDelete > <http://doxygen.postgresql.org/bufpage_8c_source.html#l00791> function. > Assert > <http://doxygen.postgresql.org/c_8h.html#a706ac5b1a53bd04067f81924b92cb9f6>(nitems > < MaxIndexTuplesPerPage > <http://doxygen.postgresql.org/itup_8h.html#adb7c94e95ce112eb47d71f7797604ddb> > ); > Is '<' sign is correct? I thougt it should be '<='. > Is it a bug or just my misunderstanding? Hm, I think it's a bug. It's probably not very significant because MaxIndexTuplesPerPage is an overestimate (it doesn't account for index special space), but it's wrong AFAICS. That Assert hasn't been there very long, either --- seems to have been added in 877b0887. Heikki, did you have some specific reason for writing it like that? regards, tom lane
On 05/19/2015 07:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Anastasia Lubennikova <lubennikovaav@gmail.com> writes: >> I am trying to create new index access method. >> And I found strange Assert in PageIndexMultiDelete >> <http://doxygen.postgresql.org/bufpage_8c_source.html#l00791> function. > >> Assert >> <http://doxygen.postgresql.org/c_8h.html#a706ac5b1a53bd04067f81924b92cb9f6>(nitems >> < MaxIndexTuplesPerPage >> <http://doxygen.postgresql.org/itup_8h.html#adb7c94e95ce112eb47d71f7797604ddb> >> ); > >> Is '<' sign is correct? I thougt it should be '<='. >> Is it a bug or just my misunderstanding? > > Hm, I think it's a bug. It's probably not very significant because > MaxIndexTuplesPerPage is an overestimate (it doesn't account for index > special space), but it's wrong AFAICS. > > That Assert hasn't been there very long, either --- seems to have been > added in 877b0887. Heikki, did you have some specific reason for writing > it like that? No, it looks like a bug to me as well. Will fix... - Heikki