Simon Riggs wrote: > On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 16:07 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > >> - The assumption that b-tree vacuum records don't need conflict >> resolution because we did that with the additional cleanup-info record >> works ATM, but it hinges on the fact that we don't delete any tuples >> marked as killed while we do the vacuum. That seems like a low-hanging >> fruit that I'd actually like to do now that I spotted it, but will then >> need to fix b-tree vacuum records accordingly. > > You didn't make a change, so I wonder whether you realised no change was > required or that you still think change is necessary, but have left it > to me? Not sure. > > I've investigated this but can't see any problem or need for change.
Sorry if I was unclear: it works as it is. But *if* we change the b-tree vacuum to also delete index tuples marked with LP_DEAD, we have a problem. > I think its important that we note this assumption though. Yeah, a comment is in order. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
