| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-committers <pgsql-committers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pgsql: Add deduplication to nbtree. |
| Date: | 2020-03-01 18:57:10 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wzn9_zQR9Q96JUyVBAdro52Ov6+bQ1zcE_FPxEVXGw-ebQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers |
On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 10:24 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I can see its point: asserting after the fact that you didn't clobber
> memory isn't a terribly safe coding method, especially in a production
> build where you won't even have the asserts. Not sure if there's a
> better way though.
I found it slightly more elegant to treat itup->t_tid as a degenerate
1 element posting list here, but I'm not particularly attached to that
approach. The loop is only truly necessary when dealing with a posting
list tuple.
Do you think that _bt_update_posting() should avoid this loop when
itup is just a plain tuple, that lacks a posting list? I can do it
that way if you prefer.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-03-01 19:29:37 | Re: pgsql: Add deduplication to nbtree. |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-03-01 18:24:55 | Re: pgsql: Add deduplication to nbtree. |