Re: Nasty btree deletion bug
От | Heikki Linnakangas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Nasty btree deletion bug |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4540EB7A.2080201@enterprisedb.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Nasty btree deletion bug (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Nasty btree deletion bug
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > On further reflection, I think I understand why we've not realized the > existence of this bug before: in fact, it *doesn't* lead to wrong search > answers. I think the only visible consequence is exactly the "failed to > re-find parent key" VACUUM error that Ed saw. The reason is that the > key misordering in the grandparent level is nearly harmless. Using your > example of Yep. It's pretty harmless. But now that I look at the original post by Ed, I don't see how the "failed to re-find parent key" error could result from the issue we've been talking about. The error message is printed when _bt_getstackbuf is unable to re-find an item in the parent of a deleted page, but _bt_getstackbuf doesn't look at or compare the keys at all. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: