Re: index corruption on composite primary key indexes
От | Heikki Linnakangas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: index corruption on composite primary key indexes |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4D0A28F1.3060502@enterprisedb.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: index corruption on composite primary key indexes (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: index corruption on composite primary key indexes
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
On 16.12.2010 16:50, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Excerpts from Ng, Stan's message of mié dic 15 21:07:57 -0300 2010: > >> Now I just need to get my head wrapped around the corner cases of MVCC >> + indexes. From a layman's perspective, it seems the index should only >> operate on the latest version. Perhaps there's a pgsql configuration >> option or hint on the index that I'm missing... The hunt continues! > > All tuples need to have index pointers, even the dead ones. To be precise, tuples that are truly dead, ie. not visible to anyone anymore, don't need index pointers. They usually have index pointers anyway, because they were needed to find the tuples before they became dead. But if you abort a vacuum after it has scanned the indexes, you end up with dead heap tuples with no index pointers. Also, there's an optimization in b-tree that removes index pointers to dead tuples, when they are encountered during index scans. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: