Re: More vacuum.c refactoring
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: