From: | "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Think I see a btree vacuuming bug |
Date: | 2002-08-27 07:14:41 |
Message-ID: | 46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA4961E64@m0114.s-mxs.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > Could the index scan be made to
> > handle cases where the index tuple it was stopped on is gone?
>
> Don't see how. With no equal keys, you could test each tuple you scan
> over to see if it's > the expected key; but that would slow things down
> tremendously I fear. In any case it fails completely when there are
> equal keys, since you could not tell where in a run of equal keys to
> resume scanning. You really have to find the exact index tuple you
> stopped on, AFAICS.
Won't it still point to the same heap page and slot ? That additional info
should be sufficient to find the exact index tuple.
And it usually won't be that far away, no ?
Andreas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2002-08-27 07:33:37 | REINDEX ALL and CLUSTER ALL |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-08-27 06:01:01 | Re: MemoryContextAlloc: invalid request size 1934906735 |