Re: mysterious nbtree.c comment

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: mysterious nbtree.c comment
Date: 2006-07-03 22:59:06
Message-ID: 7312.1151967546@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> I don't see how the lack of deletions is relevant to needing vacuum-cycle-ID.
> AFAICT there's still a risk that someone will come along and do a page split
> underneath this scan and if the page is to the left of the scan it will be
> missed.

Well, if there are active insertions or deletions happening in parallel
with the scan, the tuple count is going to be at best approximate
anyway, no? So there's no need to be tense about ensuring we visit
every single index tuple. We do want to hit all the pages so we can
clean up any recyclable pages, but that's not a problem.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2006-07-04 01:22:52 Re: Transaction and table partitioning
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2006-07-03 22:55:43 buildfarm stats