| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: More vacuum.c refactoring |
| Date: | 2004-06-10 21:19:22 |
| Message-ID: | 4018.1086902362@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at> writes:
> This code is very similar to vacuum_page(). The major difference is
> that vacuum_page() uses vacpage->offsets while the code in repair_frag()
> looks for MOVED_OFF bits in tuple headers. AFAICS the tuples with the
> MOVED_OFF bit set are exactly those referenced by vacpage->offsets.
This does not make me comfortable. You *think* that two different bits
of code are doing the same thing, so you want to hack up vacuum.c? This
module is delicate code --- we've had tons of bugs there in the past
--- and no I have zero confidence that passing the regression tests
proves anything, because all those prior bugs passed the regression
tests.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-06-10 21:26:29 | Re: [PATCHES] serverlog function (log_destination file) |
| Previous Message | Glen Parker | 2004-06-10 21:05:42 | Re: Why frequently updated tables are an issue |