RE: [HACKERS] [6.5.2] potentially major bug?

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
> > [mailto:owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org]On Behalf Of The Hermit
> > Hacker
> >
> > Okay, I don't know if this has been fixed in 7.0, but:
> >
> > webcounter=> drop index webhit_referer_raw_url;
> > DROP
> > webcounter=> create index webhit_referer_raw_url on
> > webhit_referer_raw using btree ( referrer_url );
> > CREATE
> > webcounter=> vacuum verbose webhit_referer_raw;
> > NOTICE:  --Relation webhit_referer_raw--
> > NOTICE:  Pages 7910: Changed 3, Reapped 2192, Empty 0, New 0; Tup
> > 547520: Vac 43402, Keep/VTL 0/0, Crash 0, UnUsed 4871, MinLen 60,
> > MaxLen 312; Re-using: Free/Avail. Space 4388524/4361716;
> > EndEmpty/Avail. Pages 0/915. Elapsed 0/0 sec.
> > NOTICE:  Index webhit_referer_raw_url: Pages 5048; Tuples 547400:
> > Deleted 0. Elapsed 0/2 sec.
> > NOTICE:  Index webhit_referer_raw_url: NUMBER OF INDEX' TUPLES
> > (547400) IS NOT THE SAME AS HEAP' (547520)
> 
> Hmmm,isn't there old transaction running somewhere ?
> 
> If so,this may be due to the use of SnapshotNow in CREATE INDEX
> command which Tom already specified a few months ago.
> We have already SnapshotAny(Jan added ?) now.
> Probably this would be solved by changing SnapshotNow -> SnapshotAny.
>

Oops,this is not so easy.
Comparetub_index() rejects duplicate index.
Is it an appropriate way to check visibility of heap
tuples in comapretub_index() ?

Comments ?

Regards.

Hirioshi Inoue
Inoue@tpf.co.jp