On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 10:46 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Yeah, we can write code that way, but then it is better to rely just
> on retain_pin variable in the function and add an Assert for bucket
> page whenever we are retaining pin. How about doing something like
>
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:59 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 11:32 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 2:33 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> It looks to to me like the recent hash index changes have
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 11:32 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 2:33 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> It looks to to me like the recent hash index changes have left
>> _hash_addovflpage slightly broken. I think that if that function
>>
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 2:33 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> It looks to to me like the recent hash index changes have left
> _hash_addovflpage slightly broken. I think that if that function
> reaches the point where it calls _hash_getbuf() to fetch the next page
> in the bucket
It looks to to me like the recent hash index changes have left
_hash_addovflpage slightly broken. I think that if that function
reaches the point where it calls _hash_getbuf() to fetch the next page
in the bucket chain, we also need to clear retain_pin. Otherwise,
we'll erroneously think that