"Pavan Deolasee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 9/13/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You have apparently
>> decided to redefine the WAL record format as using one-based rather than
>> zero-based item offsets, which would be fine if any of the rest of the
>> code had been changed to agree ...
> I know Heikki changed that when he did the initial refactoring, but not
> sure why. May be he wanted to make it more consistent.
> But I don't think its broken because we collect the offsets in one-based
> format in PageRepairFragmentation, WAL log in that format and redo
> the same way. Am I missing something ?

Hmm, I had been thinking that vacuum.c and vacuumlazy.c worked directly
with that info, but it looks like you're right, only
PageRepairFragmentation touches that array.  Never mind ... though my
suspicions would probably not have been aroused if anyone had bothered
to fix the comments.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

Reply via email to