Typo in src/backend/access/hash/README
Hi,
Not sure what word was missed here, but I guess "count":
our the number of buckets stored in our cached copy of the metapage. If
-so, the bucket has certainly been split, because the must originally
+so, the bucket has certainly been split, because the count must originally
have been less than the number of buckets that existed at that time and--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
Attachments:
somebody-accidentally-a-word.patchapplication/octet-stream; name=somebody-accidentally-a-word.patchDownload
diff --git a/src/backend/access/hash/README b/src/backend/access/hash/README
index bb90722778f..fa5a9c38455 100644
--- a/src/backend/access/hash/README
+++ b/src/backend/access/hash/README
@@ -190,7 +190,7 @@ After computing the ostensibly-correct bucket number based on our cached
copy of the metapage, we lock the corresponding primary bucket page and
check whether the bucket count stored in hasho_prevblkno is greater than
our the number of buckets stored in our cached copy of the metapage. If
-so, the bucket has certainly been split, because the must originally
+so, the bucket has certainly been split, because the count must originally
have been less than the number of buckets that existed at that time and
can't have increased except due to a split. If not, the bucket can't have
been split, because a split would have created a new bucket with a higher
On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 04:30:28PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
Hi,
Not sure what word was missed here, but I guess "count":
our the number of buckets stored in our cached copy of the metapage. If -so, the bucket has certainly been split, because the must originally +so, the bucket has certainly been split, because the count must originally have been less than the number of buckets that existed at that time and
I think there's a 2nd typo:
|After computing the ostensibly-correct bucket number based on our cached
|copy of the metapage, we lock the corresponding primary bucket page and
|check whether the bucket count stored in hasho_prevblkno is greater than
|OUR the number of buckets stored in our cached copy of the metapage. If
remove "our"?
--94eb2c0d4c02fe3e960566a1f43e
Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="somebody-accidentally-a-word.patch"
:)
Justin
On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 9:10 AM, Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 04:30:28PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
Hi,
Not sure what word was missed here, but I guess "count":
our the number of buckets stored in our cached copy of the metapage. If -so, the bucket has certainly been split, because the must originally +so, the bucket has certainly been split, because the count must originally have been less than the number of buckets that existed at that time andI think there's a 2nd typo:
|After computing the ostensibly-correct bucket number based on our cached
|copy of the metapage, we lock the corresponding primary bucket page and
|check whether the bucket count stored in hasho_prevblkno is greater than
|OUR the number of buckets stored in our cached copy of the metapage. Ifremove "our"?
Both your and Thomas's proposed change looks good to me.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 12:23:31PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 9:10 AM, Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 04:30:28PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
Hi,
Not sure what word was missed here, but I guess "count":
our the number of buckets stored in our cached copy of the metapage. If -so, the bucket has certainly been split, because the must originally +so, the bucket has certainly been split, because the count must originally have been less than the number of buckets that existed at that time andI think there's a 2nd typo:
|After computing the ostensibly-correct bucket number based on our cached
|copy of the metapage, we lock the corresponding primary bucket page and
|check whether the bucket count stored in hasho_prevblkno is greater than
|OUR the number of buckets stored in our cached copy of the metapage. Ifremove "our"?
Both your and Thomas's proposed change looks good to me.
Fixed in the attached, applied patch.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +Attachments:
readme.difftext/x-diff; charset=us-asciiDownload
diff --git a/src/backend/access/hash/README b/src/backend/access/hash/README
new file mode 100644
index bb90722..21b4a82
*** a/src/backend/access/hash/README
--- b/src/backend/access/hash/README
*************** reality, InvalidBlockNumber.
*** 189,196 ****
After computing the ostensibly-correct bucket number based on our cached
copy of the metapage, we lock the corresponding primary bucket page and
check whether the bucket count stored in hasho_prevblkno is greater than
! our the number of buckets stored in our cached copy of the metapage. If
! so, the bucket has certainly been split, because the must originally
have been less than the number of buckets that existed at that time and
can't have increased except due to a split. If not, the bucket can't have
been split, because a split would have created a new bucket with a higher
--- 189,196 ----
After computing the ostensibly-correct bucket number based on our cached
copy of the metapage, we lock the corresponding primary bucket page and
check whether the bucket count stored in hasho_prevblkno is greater than
! the number of buckets stored in our cached copy of the metapage. If
! so, the bucket has certainly been split, because the count must originally
have been less than the number of buckets that existed at that time and
can't have increased except due to a split. If not, the bucket can't have
been split, because a split would have created a new bucket with a higher