On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 12:23:31PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 9:10 AM, Justin Pryzby <pry...@telsasoft.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 04:30:28PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> Not sure what word was missed here, but I guess "count": > >> > >> our the number of buckets stored in our cached copy of the metapage. If > >> -so, the bucket has certainly been split, because the must originally > >> +so, the bucket has certainly been split, because the count must originally > >> have been less than the number of buckets that existed at that time and > > > > I think there's a 2nd typo: > > > > |After computing the ostensibly-correct bucket number based on our cached > > |copy of the metapage, we lock the corresponding primary bucket page and > > |check whether the bucket count stored in hasho_prevblkno is greater than > > |OUR the number of buckets stored in our cached copy of the metapage. If > > > > remove "our"? > > > > Both your and Thomas's proposed change looks good to me.
Fixed in the attached, applied patch. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
diff --git a/src/backend/access/hash/README b/src/backend/access/hash/README new file mode 100644 index bb90722..21b4a82 *** a/src/backend/access/hash/README --- b/src/backend/access/hash/README *************** reality, InvalidBlockNumber. *** 189,196 **** After computing the ostensibly-correct bucket number based on our cached copy of the metapage, we lock the corresponding primary bucket page and check whether the bucket count stored in hasho_prevblkno is greater than ! our the number of buckets stored in our cached copy of the metapage. If ! so, the bucket has certainly been split, because the must originally have been less than the number of buckets that existed at that time and can't have increased except due to a split. If not, the bucket can't have been split, because a split would have created a new bucket with a higher --- 189,196 ---- After computing the ostensibly-correct bucket number based on our cached copy of the metapage, we lock the corresponding primary bucket page and check whether the bucket count stored in hasho_prevblkno is greater than ! the number of buckets stored in our cached copy of the metapage. If ! so, the bucket has certainly been split, because the count must originally have been less than the number of buckets that existed at that time and can't have increased except due to a split. If not, the bucket can't have been split, because a split would have created a new bucket with a higher
