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