On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 9:29 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 7:27 PM Mihail Nikalayeu
> wrote:
> > > FWIW _hash_readpage has a comment about a stashed LSN, so it seems as
> > > if this was barely missed by the work on hash indexes around 2017:
> >
> > I think commit 22c5e73
On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 7:27 PM Mihail Nikalayeu
wrote:
> > FWIW _hash_readpage has a comment about a stashed LSN, so it seems as
> > if this was barely missed by the work on hash indexes around 2017:
>
> I think commit 22c5e735 [0] (Remove lsn from HashScanPosData) is the
> thing you are looking
Hello, Peter!
> FWIW _hash_readpage has a comment about a stashed LSN, so it seems as
> if this was barely missed by the work on hash indexes around 2017:
I think commit 22c5e735 [0] (Remove lsn from HashScanPosData) is the
thing you are looking for in relation to hash.
Best regards,
Mikhail.
On Tue, Jul 15, 2025 at 2:19 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> * gistkillitems() correctly checks if the page's LSN has changed in
> the period between when we initially read the leaf page and the period
> when/after we accessed the heap. But (unlike nbtree), it fails to
> account for unlogged relations
Both hash and GiST indexes set LP_DEAD bits for kill_prior_tuple,
using an approach based on that of nbtree. hash gained this ability in
commit 6977b8b7f4, while GiST gained it in commit 013ebc0a7b.
gistkillitems() and _hash_kill_items() both have similar bugs:
* gistkillitems() correctly checks
