Re: pg_amcheck contrib application

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Andrey M(dot) Borodin" <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Amul Sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_amcheck contrib application
Date: 2021-03-23 19:44:48
Message-ID: 988870.1616528688@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> That being said, I should make _bt_lock_subtree_parent() return false
> and back out of page deletion without raising an error in the case
> where we really cannot locate a valid downlink. We really ought to
> soldier on when that happens, since we'll do that for a bunch of other
> reasons already. I believe that the only reason we throw an error
> today is for parity with the page split case (the main
> _bt_getstackbuf() call). But this isn't the same situation at all --
> this is VACUUM.

> I will make this change to HEAD soon, barring objections.

+1. Not deleting the upper page seems better than the alternatives.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim Finnerty 2021-03-23 19:46:04 Re: insensitive collations
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2021-03-23 19:41:54 Re: pg_amcheck contrib application