On 13.07.2011 22:04, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 13.07.2011 21:56, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>> Thank you very much for detail explanation. But this line of modified
>> patch
>> seems strange for me:
>> *newchildoffnum = blkno;
>> I believe it should be:
>> *newchildoffnum = i;
>
> Yes, you're right. It's scary that it worked during testing anyway.
> Maybe the resulting tree was indeed broken but it didn't affect the
> subsequent inserts so I didn't notice.
Ok, committed this now. I decided to rename the childoffnum field to
"downlinkoffnum". I figured it'd be dangerous that the field means
something subtly different in different versions, if we need to
backpatch bug fixes that use that field.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
