On Mon, 2009-09-21 at 13:50 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > The only bug I've found
! > is this that we seem to be missing conflict > resolution for GiST index tuples deleted by the kill_prior_tuples > mechanism. Unless I'm missing something, we need similar handling there > that we have in b-tree. OK, I agree with that. Straightforward change. Thanks very much. I marked the comment to indicate that the handling for GIST and GIN indexes looked dubious to me also. I had the earlier "it is safe" comments but that was before we looked at the kill prior tuples issue. Re-reading code for GIN also, I note that there isn't any further work because we don't kill prior tuples ever. Also, there is no special handling of the GIN b-tree posting tree because VACUUM scans that in logical sequence, rather than the physical sequence in nbtree. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
