Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes. - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes.
Date
Msg-id CAH2-WzmKCh0=+3Np6UcFYu+CJcu32ZCAw7awL=H58tfkJyUShg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes.  (Anastasia Lubennikova <a.lubennikova@postgrespro.ru>)
Responses Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes.  (Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 7:59 AM, Anastasia Lubennikova
<a.lubennikova@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> Here is the new version of the patch set.
> All patches are rebased to apply without conflicts.
>
> Besides, they contain following fixes:
> - pg_dump bug is fixed
> - index_truncate_tuple() now has 3rd argument new_indnatts.
> - new tests for amcheck, dblink and subscription/t/001_rep_changes.pl
> - info about opclass implementors and included columns is now in sgml doc

This only changes the arguments given to index_truncate_tuple(), which
is a superficial change. It does not actually change anything about
the on-disk representation, which is what I sought. Why is that a
problem? I don't think it's very complicated.

The patch needs a rebase, as Erik mentioned:

1 out of 19 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file
src/backend/utils/cache/relcache.c.rej
(Stripping trailing CRs from patch; use --binary to disable.)

I also noticed that you still haven't done anything differently with
this code in _bt_checksplitloc(), which I mentioned in April of last
year:

    /* Account for all the old tuples */
    leftfree = state->leftspace - olddataitemstoleft;
    rightfree = state->rightspace -
        (state->olddataitemstotal - olddataitemstoleft);

    /*
     * The first item on the right page becomes the high key of the left page;
     * therefore it counts against left space as well as right space.
     */
    leftfree -= firstrightitemsz;

    /* account for the new item */
    if (newitemonleft)
        leftfree -= (int) state->newitemsz;
    else
        rightfree -= (int) state->newitemsz;

With an extreme enough case, this could result in a failure to find a
split point. Or at least, if that isn't true then it's not clear why,
and I think it needs to be explained.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Speedup of relation deletes during recovery
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE ADD COLUMN fast default