On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 8:19 AM, Anastasia Lubennikova
<a.lubennik...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> I do hope that my patch will be accepted in 9.6, so this conflict looks
> really bad.

I hope so too. I'll have to look into this issue.

> I think that error is caused by changes in pages layout. To save some space
> nonkey attributes are truncated
> when btree copies the indexed value into inner pages or into high key. You
> can look at index_reform_tuple() calls.

That seems like the kind of problem that would be expected when things
like that change. I think it's going to be hard to add new B-Tree
features without a tool like this, which was a big reason to work on
it; to make these new projects possible to test and review. I see many
opportunities to improve the B-Tree code, just as I imagine you do.
These projects are quite strategically important, because B-Trees are
so frequently used. I think that Postgres B-Trees produce excessive
random I/O for checkpoints for various reasons, and this disadvantages
Postgres when it is compared to other major systems. As things get
better in other areas of Postgres, these hard problems become more
important to solve.

> I wonder, whether you can add some check of catalog version to your module
> or this case requires more changes?

I think that it's just going to be tied to the Postgres version. So,
if your B-Tree patches are committed first, it's on me to make sure
they're handled correctly. Or vice-versa. Not worried that that will
be a problem.

We already take special steps to avoid the "minus infinity" item on
internal pages. I think that in the future, if Postgres B-Trees get
suffix truncation for internal page items, there are new problems for
amcheck (suffix truncation remove unneeded information from internal
page items, sometimes greatly increasing B-Tree fan-out. Internal page
items need only be sufficient to guide index scans correctly.).

Specially, with suffix truncation there might be "minus infinity"
*attributes*, too (these could make it safe to completely remove
attributes/columns past the first distinguishing/distinct attribute on
each item on internal pages). That's a case that amcheck then needs to
care about, just like it currently cares about the existing concept of
minus infinity items. That's how it goes for amcheck.

Peter Geoghegan

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to