On 13.07.2011 22:04, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 13.07.2011 21:56, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
Thank you very much for detail explanation. But this line of modified
patch
seems strange for me:
*newchildoffnum = blkno;
I believe it should be:
*newchildoffnum = i;
Yes, you're right. It's scary that it worked during testing anyway.
Maybe the resulting tree was indeed broken but it didn't affect the
subsequent inserts so I didn't notice.
Ok, committed this now. I decided to rename the childoffnum field to
"downlinkoffnum". I figured it'd be dangerous that the field means
something subtly different in different versions, if we need to
backpatch bug fixes that use that field.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
