Re: [HACKERS] Dead code in _bt_split?
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Heikki, did this code cleanup get included in your recent btree split
fix?
No.
OK, would you please send a patch to remove the unused code. Thanks.
Ok, here you are.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Index: src/backend/access/nbtree/nbtinsert.c
===
RCS file: /home/hlinnaka/pgcvsrepository/pgsql/src/backend/access/nbtree/nbtinsert.c,v
retrieving revision 1.148
diff -c -r1.148 nbtinsert.c
*** src/backend/access/nbtree/nbtinsert.c 27 Jan 2007 20:53:30 - 1.148
--- src/backend/access/nbtree/nbtinsert.c 6 Feb 2007 10:23:26 -
***
*** 855,876
/* cope with possibility that newitem goes at the end */
if (i = newitemoff)
{
! if (newitemonleft)
! {
! _bt_pgaddtup(rel, leftpage, newitemsz, newitem, leftoff,
! left sibling);
! itup_off = leftoff;
! itup_blkno = BufferGetBlockNumber(buf);
! leftoff = OffsetNumberNext(leftoff);
! }
! else
! {
! _bt_pgaddtup(rel, rightpage, newitemsz, newitem, rightoff,
! right sibling);
! itup_off = rightoff;
! itup_blkno = BufferGetBlockNumber(rbuf);
! rightoff = OffsetNumberNext(rightoff);
! }
}
/*
--- 855,865
/* cope with possibility that newitem goes at the end */
if (i = newitemoff)
{
! _bt_pgaddtup(rel, rightpage, newitemsz, newitem, rightoff,
! right sibling);
! itup_off = rightoff;
! itup_blkno = BufferGetBlockNumber(rbuf);
! rightoff = OffsetNumberNext(rightoff);
}
/*
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] Dead code in _bt_split?
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bruce Momjian wrote: OK, would you please send a patch to remove the unused code. Thanks. Ok, here you are. Applied with an added comment and Assert. While testing it I realized that there seems to be a nearby bug in _bt_findsplitloc: it fails to consider the possibility of moving all the extant items to the left side. It will always return a firstright = maxoff. ISTM this would mean that it could choose a bad split if the incoming item goes at the end and both it and the last extant item are large: in this case they should be split apart, but they won't be. Heikki, do you feel like looking at that, or shall I? regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] Dead code in _bt_split?
Tom Lane wrote: Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bruce Momjian wrote: OK, would you please send a patch to remove the unused code. Thanks. Ok, here you are. Applied with an added comment and Assert. While testing it I realized that there seems to be a nearby bug in _bt_findsplitloc: it fails to consider the possibility of moving all the extant items to the left side. It will always return a firstright = maxoff. ISTM this would mean that it could choose a bad split if the incoming item goes at the end and both it and the last extant item are large: in this case they should be split apart, but they won't be. Heikki, do you feel like looking at that, or shall I? I'll take a look at it. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: 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
Re: [HACKERS] Dead code in _bt_split?
Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Bruce Momjian wrote: Heikki, did this code cleanup get included in your recent btree split fix? No. OK, would you please send a patch to remove the unused code. Thanks. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDBhttp://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] Dead code in _bt_split?
Bruce Momjian wrote: Heikki, did this code cleanup get included in your recent btree split fix? No. --- Tom Lane wrote: Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In that case, newitemleft would be false, right? I'm saying the piece marked with X below is unreachable: Oh, I see. Hmm ... probably so, I think that chunk of code was just copied and pasted from where it occurs within the loop. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Re: [HACKERS] Dead code in _bt_split?
Heikki, did this code cleanup get included in your recent btree split fix? --- Tom Lane wrote: Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In that case, newitemleft would be false, right? I'm saying the piece marked with X below is unreachable: Oh, I see. Hmm ... probably so, I think that chunk of code was just copied and pasted from where it occurs within the loop. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDBhttp://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: 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
