Re: pg_amcheck contrib application
От | Peter Geoghegan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_amcheck contrib application |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAH2-WzmdypcxU6LdJ_QMf0KHNpaWJK4AJKLf-YjEuCtrEvGWwA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_amcheck contrib application (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_amcheck contrib application
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 12:44 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > I will make this change to HEAD soon, barring objections. > > +1. Not deleting the upper page seems better than the alternatives. FWIW it might also work that way as a holdover from the old page deletion algorithm. These days we decide exactly which pages (leaf page plus possible internal pages) are to be deleted as a whole up front (these are a subtree, though usually just a degenerate single-leaf-page subtree -- internal page deletions are rare). One of the advantages of this design is that we verify practically all of the work involved in deleting an entire subtree up-front, inside _bt_lock_subtree_parent(). It's clearly safe to back out of it if it looks dicey. -- Peter Geoghegan
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: