Horton

Thread

Commits

  1. Fix GiST README's explanation of the NSN cross-check.

  1. Fix GIST readme on LSN vs NSN

    Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> — 2023-09-18T11:09:43Z

    The GiST README says:

> If the F_FOLLOW_RIGHT flag is not set, a scan compares the NSN on the
> child and the LSN it saw in the parent. If NSN < LSN, the scan looked
> at the parent page before the downlink was inserted, so it should
> follow the rightlink. Otherwise the scan saw the downlink in the
> parent page, and will/did follow that as usual.

While the code does this (in gistget.c):

> 	if (!XLogRecPtrIsInvalid(pageItem->data.parentlsn) &&
> 		(GistFollowRight(page) ||
> 		 pageItem->data.parentlsn < GistPageGetNSN(page)) &&
> 		opaque->rightlink != InvalidBlockNumber /* sanity check */ )
> 	{
> 		/* There was a page split, follow right link to add pages */

Note the comparison on LSN and NSN. The code seems correct, but the 
README got it backwards.

The narrow fix would be to change the "NSN < LSN" to "LSN < NSN" in the 
README. But I propose the attached patch to reword the sentence a little 
more.

-- 
Heikki Linnakangas
Neon (https://neon.tech)

  2. Re: Fix GIST readme on LSN vs NSN

    Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> — 2023-09-18T11:53:28Z

    > On 18 Sep 2023, at 13:09, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote:

> I propose the attached patch to reword the sentence a little more.

LGTM, +1

--
Daniel Gustafsson

  3. Re: Fix GIST readme on LSN vs NSN

    Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> — 2023-09-19T08:57:58Z

    On 18/09/2023 14:53, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 18 Sep 2023, at 13:09, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote:
> 
>> I propose the attached patch to reword the sentence a little more.
> 
> LGTM, +1

Committed, thanks!

-- 
Heikki Linnakangas
Neon (https://neon.tech)