Re: GIN needs tonic

On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 14:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 09:41 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >> This means that the WAL replay of that record type has never been tested
> >> correctly :-(.
>
> > This must have been added after mid-Feb this year. I notice there are a
> > few places where functionality is tested against temp tables, which may
> > mask other non-recoverable issues in this and other rmgrs. We should
> > make it standard practice to include only non-temp tables to cover
> > functionality other than specific temp table commands.
>
> I've pointed out before that the regression tests are not particularly
> meant to provide an exhaustive test of WAL recovery. In this particular
> case, so far as I can tell the bug is only observable with
> full_page_writes turned off --- otherwise XLogInsert will invariably
> decide to log the full page, because it's going to see a zeroed-out
> LSN in the passed-in buffer.

Yes, I was testing with full_page_writes = off at that point.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com