From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>
cc: =?UTF-8?B?5aSn5aGa5oay5Y+4?= <otsuka.kenji@nttcom.co.jp>,
        pgsql-docs@postgresql.org, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] The number of bytes is stored in index_size of
 pgstatindex() ?
In-reply-to: <12435.1455823990@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <56C5B2C7.7010604@nttcom.co.jp> <31925.1455817248@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAM3SWZQtQ2WDGRqa2g_dbfHuu9CebfWvJ_XpXggFoFG1mUYzXw@mail.gmail.com>
 <377.1455818470@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAM3SWZT2UaCTqpd71uhUVQN7b7k4treyzGyQLpv4N=TYU=F7tg@mail.gmail.com>
 <10922.1455821371@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAM3SWZRLfCayENUVE2SqyeAiYKLFO7a7cHK4YbJGj55ZQ2i35w@mail.gmail.com>
 <12435.1455823990@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	message dated "Thu, 18 Feb 2016 14:33:10 -0500"
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 14:52:32 -0500
Message-ID: <13291.1455825152@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-docs-owner@postgresql.org

I wrote:
> Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> writes:
>> I think we should change it. It seems like a bug to me.

> Me too.  Is it enough bug-like to be something to back-patch, or should
> we just change it in HEAD?

Actually, there's a significantly worse bug here: I just realized that the
page type tests are done in the wrong order.  A deleted page that was
formerly a leaf will be reported as though it was a live leaf page,
because both the BTP_LEAF and BTP_DELETED flags are set for such a page.

It looks like this was done correctly to begin with, and I broke it in
d287818eb514d431b1a68e1f3940cd958f82aa34.  Not sure what I was thinking :-(

Anyway, I think that puts the final nail in the coffin of the idea that
the current code's behavior is sane enough to preserve.  I think we should
fix all these things and back-patch 'em all.

			regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs