Re: VACUUM can finish an interrupted nbtree page split -- is that okay?
От | Peter Geoghegan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: VACUUM can finish an interrupted nbtree page split -- is that okay? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAH2-WznOJS-=dEQ9JF+wq-=hbGsMp3o0MvZbCrc5xGDA7fPHnw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: VACUUM can finish an interrupted nbtree page split -- is that okay? (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>) |
Ответы |
Re: VACUUM can finish an interrupted nbtree page split -- is that okay?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 9:59 AM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote: > On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 12:27 AM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote: > > I don't understand that reasoning. Yes, _bt_pagedel() will complain if > > it finds a half-dead internal page. But how does that mean that > > _bt_lock_branch_parent() can't encounter one? > > I suppose that in theory it could, but only if you allow that any > possible state could be found -- it doesn't seem any more likely than > any other random illegal state. To be fair, I suppose that the code made more sense when it first went in, because at the time there was a chance that there could be leftover half-dead internal pages. But, that was a long time ago now. I wonder why the code wasn't complaining about corruption loudly, like the top level code, instead of treating half-dead pages as a legitimate reason to not proceed with multi-level page deletion. That would have been overkill, but it would have made much more sense IMV. I would like to proceed with pushing this patch to HEAD in the next few days, since it's clearly removing code that can't be useful. Are there any objections? -- Peter Geoghegan
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: