Re: More vacuum.c refactoring - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: More vacuum.c refactoring
Date
Msg-id 4018.1086902362@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to More vacuum.c refactoring  (Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg@aon.at>)
Responses Re: More vacuum.c refactoring
List pgsql-hackers
Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg@aon.at> writes:
> This code is very similar to vacuum_page().  The major difference is
> that vacuum_page() uses vacpage->offsets while the code in repair_frag()
> looks for MOVED_OFF bits in tuple headers.  AFAICS the tuples with the
> MOVED_OFF bit set are exactly those referenced by vacpage->offsets.

This does not make me comfortable.  You *think* that two different bits
of code are doing the same thing, so you want to hack up vacuum.c?  This
module is delicate code --- we've had tons of bugs there in the past
--- and no I have zero confidence that passing the regression tests
proves anything, because all those prior bugs passed the regression
tests.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Glen Parker"
Date:
Subject: Re: Why frequently updated tables are an issue
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] serverlog function (log_destination file)