From: | Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: segfault in hot standby for hash indexes |
Date: | 2017-03-24 06:55:19 |
Message-ID: | CAE9k0PkmFLeU5FhVRLW+awED8r_7GRnKnVUtjrLYX8aajTrccQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>>> > I think this will work, but not sure if there is a merit to deviate
>>> > from what btree does to handle this case. One thing I find slightly
>>> > awkward in hash_xlog_vacuum_get_latestRemovedXid() is that you are
>>> > using a number of tuples registered as part of fixed data
>>> > (xl_hash_vacuum_one_page) to traverse the data registered as buf data.
>>> > I think it will be better if we register offsets also in fixed part of
>>> > data as we are doing btree case.
>>
>> Agreed. I have made the changes accordingly. Please check attached v2 patch.
>>
>
> Changes look good to me. I think you can modify the comments in
> structure xl_hash_vacuum_one_page to mention "TARGET OFFSET NUMBERS
> FOLLOW AT THE END"
>
Added the comment in xl_hash_vacuum_one_page structure.
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> Also another small point in this regard, do we need two separate
>>> variables to track number of deleted items in below code? I think one
>>> variable is sufficient.
>>>
>>> _hash_vacuum_one_page()
>>> {
>>> ..
>>> deletable[ndeletable++] = offnum;
>>> tuples_removed += 1;--
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I think 'ndeletable' alone should be fine.
>>
>
> I think it would have been probably okay to use *int* for ntuples as
> that matches with what you are actually assigning in the function.
okay, corrected it. Attached is newer version of patch.
--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma
EnterpriseDB:http://www.enterprisedb.com
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
fixes_in_hash_xlog_vacuum_get_latestRemovedXid_v3.patch | application/x-patch | 5.4 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2017-03-24 07:05:49 | Re: BUG: pg_dump generates corrupted gzip file in Windows |
Previous Message | Mithun Cy | 2017-03-24 06:50:12 | Re: [POC] A better way to expand hash indexes. |