| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Hannes Dorbath <light(at)theendofthetunnel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Index trouble with 8.3b4 |
| Date: | 2008-01-14 21:53:39 |
| Message-ID: | 6755.1200347619@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> On Sun, 2008-01-13 at 18:52 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I wonder whether there are any other places that are silently assuming
>> that heapscans start from page zero ...
> I considered that question when implementing sync scans, but I could not
> think of any specific areas of the code that would likely be affected.
I went through all of the heap_beginscan calls in the code last night.
pgstattuple was broken but AFAICS none of the other callers care about
the visitation order. I wonder though about third-party add-ons :-(
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | andy | 2008-01-14 21:54:19 | Re: Locking & concurrency - best practices |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2008-01-14 21:38:32 | Re: Locking & concurrency - best practices |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2008-01-14 22:14:18 | Re: Postgresql Materialized views |
| Previous Message | Roberts, Jon | 2008-01-14 21:41:50 | Re: to_char incompatibility |