| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Michail Nikolaev <michail(dot)nikolaev(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Concurrency bug in amcheck |
| Date: | 2020-08-04 23:19:03 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wz=fEM2DTdNM6f3YOttEqxTWT=nBXA5--S-K0VcD2xeQoQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 4:18 PM Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Pushed. Comment is changed as you suggested. But I've replaced "last
> pivot tuple" with "remaining tuples", because the page can also have a
> high key, which is also a tuple.
You're right, of course.
Thanks again
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2020-08-04 23:59:14 | Re: LSM tree for Postgres |
| Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2020-08-04 23:17:48 | Re: Concurrency bug in amcheck |