Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> writes: > On 13.12.2010 19:48, Tom Lane wrote: >> Yeah. Wouldn't the original page-split record have been carrying full >> page images already?
> Yes. > BTW, the original split record doesn't run into the limit because it > doesn't use the backup-block mechanism, it contains all the tuples for > all the pages in the main payload. I see. >> (And if so, why didn't we have this problem in the >> previous implementation?) > In the previous implementation, the NSN was updated immediately in the > page split record, and there was no follow-right flag to clear. So the > child pages didn't need to be updated when the downlinks are inserted. Can we fix it so that each child page is updated, and its downlink inserted, as a separate atomic action? That'd require each intermediate state to be consistent and crash-safe, but I think you really need the intermediate states to be consistent anyway because of concurrent scans. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers