Where are we on this? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Lane wrote: > Manfred Koizar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I understand you, honestly. Do I read between your lines that you > > didn't review my previous vacuum.c refactoring patch? Please do. It'd > > make *me* more comfortable. > > I did not yet, but I will get to it. I encourage everyone else to > take a look too. I agree with Alvaro that fooling with this code > merits extreme caution. > > BTW, I do not at all mean to suggest that vacuum.c contains no bugs > at the moment ;-). I suspect for example that it is a bit random > about whether MOVED_OFF/MOVED_IN bits get cleared immediately, or > only by the next transaction that chances to visit the tuple. The > next-transaction-fixup behavior has to be there in case the VACUUM > transaction crashes, but that doesn't mean that VACUUM should > deliberately leave work undone. > > > I see three significant differences between the code in repair_frag() > > and vacuum_page(). > > Will study these comments later, but it's too late at night here... > again, the more eyeballs on this the better... > > regards, tom lane > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly > -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
