| From: | Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Subject: | Re: Corrupted btree index on HEAD because of covering indexes |
| Date: | 2018-04-20 06:29:25 |
| Message-ID: | 40306ecc-495d-11f3-b7ea-2819d7babd7d@sigaev.ru |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I tried to minimize Michael's test case and add it to patch.
>
>
> -if (ItemPointerIsValid(leafhikey))
> +if (ItemPointerGetBlockNumberNoCheck(leafhikey) != InvalidBlockNumber)
>
> Should we use BTreeInnerTupleGetDownLink() as soon as we use
> BTreeInnerTupleSetDownLink() for setting this?
> Or even invent BTreeInnerTupleDownLinkIsValid() macro?
I am not sure. Here we actually store UP link - to top parent to remove.
I'm afraid using BTreeInnerTupleGetDownLink/BTreeInnerTupleSetDownLink
could cause a confusion, in other hand, introducing
TreeInnerTupleGetUpLink/BTreeInnerTupleSetUpLink seems over-engineering
--
Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru
WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2018-04-20 06:41:58 | Re: Corrupted btree index on HEAD because of covering indexes |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2018-04-20 06:10:43 | Re: Problem while setting the fpw with SIGHUP |