Re: amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool)
Date
Msg-id CAM3SWZQZKjsEsPL_41p9zpppk5ZHfGC8waWzNtU5SdakH0PB2g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool)  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
> You could have a race, where
> there was a concurrent page deletion of the left sibling of the child
> page, then a concurrent insertion into the newly expanded keyspace of
> the parent. Therefore, the downlink in the parent (which is the
> "target", to use the patch's terminology) would not be a lower bound
> on items in the page.

Excuse me: I meant the newly expanded keyspace of the *child*. (The
parent's keyspace would have covered everything. It's naturally far
larger than either child's keyspace, since it typically has several
hundred pages.)


-- 
Peter Geoghegan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Provide much better wait information in pg_stat_activity.
Next
From: Joel Jacobson
Date:
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Provide much better wait information in pg_stat_activity.