Re: pg_amcheck contrib application
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
|
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: