| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Josh berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Victor Yegorov <vyegorov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Reviewing freeze map code |
| Date: | 2016-05-18 22:34:36 |
| Message-ID: | 20160518223436.w32fzgoui6gaaj4p@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-05-18 18:25:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> > Maybe this is the wrong perspective. I mean, is there a reason we even
> > need this option, other than a lack of any other way to do a full table
> > scan to check for corruption, etc.? If we're only doing this for
> > integrity checking, then maybe it's better if it becomes a function,
> > which could be later extended with additional forensic features?
>
> Yes, I've been wondering that too. VACUUM is not meant as a corruption
> checker, and should not be made into one, so what is the point of this
> flag exactly?
Well, so far a VACUUM FREEZE (or just setting vacuum_freeze_table_age =
0) verified the correctness of the visibility map; and that found a
number of bugs. Now visibilitymap grew additional responsibilities,
with a noticeable risk of data eating bugs, and there's no way to verify
whether visibilitymap's frozen bits are set correctly.
> (AFAIK, "select count(*) from table" would offer a similar amount of
> sanity checking as a full-table VACUUM scan does, so it's not like
> we've removed functionality with no near-term replacement.)
I don't think that'd do anything comparable to
/*
* As of PostgreSQL 9.2, the visibility map bit should never be set if
* the page-level bit is clear. However, it's possible that the bit
* got cleared after we checked it and before we took the buffer
* content lock, so we must recheck before jumping to the conclusion
* that something bad has happened.
*/
else if (all_visible_according_to_vm && !PageIsAllVisible(page)
&& VM_ALL_VISIBLE(onerel, blkno, &vmbuffer))
{
elog(WARNING, "page is not marked all-visible but visibility map bit is set in relation \"%s\" page %u",
relname, blkno);
visibilitymap_clear(onerel, blkno, vmbuffer);
}
If we had a checking module for all this it'd possibly be sufficient,
but we don't.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-05-18 22:42:16 | Re: Reviewing freeze map code |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-05-18 22:25:39 | Re: Reviewing freeze map code |