Re: pg_amcheck contrib application - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: pg_amcheck contrib application
Date
Msg-id 988870.1616528688@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_amcheck contrib application  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>)
Responses Re: pg_amcheck contrib application
List pgsql-hackers
Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> writes:
> That being said, I should make _bt_lock_subtree_parent() return false
> and back out of page deletion without raising an error in the case
> where we really cannot locate a valid downlink. We really ought to
> soldier on when that happens, since we'll do that for a bunch of other
> reasons already. I believe that the only reason we throw an error
> today is for parity with the page split case (the main
> _bt_getstackbuf() call). But this isn't the same situation at all --
> this is VACUUM.

> I will make this change to HEAD soon, barring objections.

+1.  Not deleting the upper page seems better than the alternatives.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_amcheck contrib application
Next
From: Jim Finnerty
Date:
Subject: Re: insensitive collations