On 09/05/2016 02:50 PM, Mithun Cy wrote:
On Sep 2, 2016 7:38 PM, "Jesper Pedersen" <jesper.peder...@redhat.com>
wrote:
Could you provide a rebased patch based on Amit's v5 ?
Please find the the patch, based on Amit's V5.
I have fixed following things
1. now in "_hash_first" we check if (opaque->hasho_prevblkno ==
InvalidBlockNumber) to see if bucket is from older version hashindex and
has been upgraded. Since as of now InvalidBlockNumber is one value greater
than maximum value the variable "metap->hashm_maxbucket" can be set (see
_hash_expandtable). We can distinguish it from rest. I tested the upgrade
issue reported by amit. It is fixed now.
2. One case which buckets hasho_prevblkno is used is where we do backward
scan. So now before testing for previous block number I test whether
current page is bucket page if so we end the bucket scan (see changes in
_hash_readprev). On other places where hasho_prevblkno is used it is not
for bucket page, so I have not put any extra check to verify if is a bucket
page.
I think that the
+ pageopaque->hasho_prevblkno = metap->hashm_maxbucket;
trick should be documented in the README, as hashm_maxbucket is defined
as uint32 where as hasho_prevblkno is a BlockNumber.
(All bucket variables should probably use the Bucket definition instead
of uint32).
For the archives, this patch conflicts with the WAL patch [1].
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1JS%2BSiRSQBzEFpnsSmxZKingrRH7WNyWULJeEJSj1-%3D0w%40mail.gmail.com
Best regards,
Jesper
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
