Re: More vacuum.c refactoring
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg@aon.at>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2004-06-10T21:19:22Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg@aon.at> writes: > This code is very similar to vacuum_page(). The major difference is > that vacuum_page() uses vacpage->offsets while the code in repair_frag() > looks for MOVED_OFF bits in tuple headers. AFAICS the tuples with the > MOVED_OFF bit set are exactly those referenced by vacpage->offsets. This does not make me comfortable. You *think* that two different bits of code are doing the same thing, so you want to hack up vacuum.c? This module is delicate code --- we've had tons of bugs there in the past --- and no I have zero confidence that passing the regression tests proves anything, because all those prior bugs passed the regression tests. regards, tom lane