On 13.07.2011 21:56, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> Thank you very much for detail explanation. But this line of modified patch
> seems strange for me:
> *newchildoffnum = blkno;
> I believe it should be:
> *newchildoffnum = i;
Yes, you're right. It's scary that it worked during testing anyway.
Maybe the resulting tree was indeed broken but it didn't affect the
subsequent inserts so I didn't notice.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com