Re: More vacuum.c refactoring

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: More vacuum.c refactoring
Date: 2004-06-10 21:19:22
Message-ID: 4018.1086902362@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2004-06-10 21:26:29 Re: [PATCHES] serverlog function (log_destination file)
Previous Message Glen Parker 2004-06-10 21:05:42 Re: Why frequently updated tables are an issue