On 16.11.2010 20:46, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 1:22 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> BTW, I don't try to fix incomplete splits during vacuum in the patch. That's
>> perhaps a bit surprising, and probably would be easy to add, but I left it
>> out for now as it's not strictly necessary.
>
> Seems like it would be good to have this; otherwise, the split might
> stay incompletely indefinitely? Would that be bad?
Nothing bad should happen. Scans that need to traverse the incompletely
split page would just be marginally slower.
> If we start to enlarge the bounding boxes on the higher levels of the
> tree and then crash before inserting the key, is there any mechanism
> for getting them back down to the minimal size?
No. There's also no mechanism for trimming the bounding boxes if a tuple
is deleted.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com