Re: [HACKERS] pageinspect: Hash index support
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] pageinspect: Hash index support |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1+4DEbUpoq+9JM5297_aLeL=D_vU4x1fcci5BhrHEVDKQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] pageinspect: Hash index support (Mithun Cy <mithun.cy@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] pageinspect: Hash index support
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Mithun Cy <mithun.cy@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> >> 7. I think it is not your bug, but probably a bug in Hash index >> itself; page flag is set to 66 (for below test); So the page is both >> LH_BUCKET_PAGE and LH_BITMAP_PAGE. Is not this a bug in hash index? >> >> I have inserted 3000 records. Hash index is on integer column. >> select hasho_flag FROM hash_page_stats(get_raw_page('i1', 1)); >> hasho_flag >> ------------ >> 66 >> > > Here is the test for same. After insertion of 3000 records, I think at > first split we can see bucket page flag is set with LH_BITMAP_PAGE. > I think your calculation is not right. 66 indicates LH_BUCKET_PAGE | LH_BUCKET_NEEDS_SPLIT_CLEANUP which is a valid state after the split. This flag will be cleared either during next split or when vacuum operates on that index page. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: