From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
Cc: | pgsql-committers <pgsql-committers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pgsql: Add deduplication to nbtree. |
Date: | 2020-03-01 22:14:03 |
Message-ID: | 5838.1583100843@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers |
Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> Attached patch shows how this could work. I prefer my original
> approach, but I can see the argument for doing it this way.
This does seem a bit duplicative ... and shouldn't both code paths
include a final "Assert(d == vacposting->ndeletedtids)"? So maybe
we're better off just rejecting the Coverity complaint.
> If we keep my original approach, we should still add a new
> "ItemPointerIsValid(&itup->t_tid)" assertion that covers the plain
> tupe case in a way that mirrors the current "_bt_posting_valid(itup)"
> assert.
Another thing that maybe bears closer scrutiny is the size calculation.
It seems a bit confused as to whether the offset of the posting list
within the tuple, or the total tuple size, or both, needs to be
MAXALIGN'd.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2020-03-01 23:01:55 | Re: pgsql: Add deduplication to nbtree. |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2020-03-01 21:37:16 | Re: pgsql: Add deduplication to nbtree. |