On Mon, 2009-09-21 at 14:01 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-09-21 at 13:50 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > is this that we seem to be missing conflict
> > resolution for GiST index tuples deleted by the kill_prior_tuples
> > mechanism. Unless I'm missing something, we need similar handling there
> > that we have in b-tree.
>
> OK, I agree with that. Straightforward change. Thanks very much.
>
> I marked the comment to indicate that the handling for GIST and GIN
> indexes looked dubious to me also. I had the earlier "it is safe"
> comments but that was before we looked at the kill prior tuples issue.
ISTM I looked at this too quickly.
kill_prior_tuple is only ever set by these lines, after scan starts:
if (!scan->xactStartedInRecovery)
scan->kill_prior_tuple = scan->xs_hot_dead;
which is set in indexam.c, not within any particular am. So the coding,
as submitted, covers all index types, current and future.
AFAICS there is no bug, unless you have a test case or can explain
further?
Worth raising as a query because it forced me to re-check how GIST and
GIN work and am happy again now.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
