From: | Quan Zongliang <quanzongliang(at)yeah(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: bugfix: when the blocksize is 32k, the function page_header of pageinspect returns negative numbers. |
Date: | 2021-07-09 01:26:37 |
Message-ID: | 8255a8e0-ee7d-a411-3746-15fe8acfd8ec@yeah.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2021/7/8 3:54 下午, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 11:28:06PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
>> I think you can refer to this prior commit for guidance.
>>
>> commit f18aa1b203930ed28cfe42e82d3418ae6277576d
>> Author: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>
>> Date: Tue Jan 19 10:28:05 2021 +0100
>>
>> pageinspect: Change block number arguments to bigint
>
> Yes, thanks. Peter's recent work is what I had in mind. I agree that
> we could improve the situation, and the change is not complicated once
> you know what needs to be done. It needs to be done as follows:
> - Create a new pageinspect--1.9--1.10.sql.
> - Provide a proper implementation for older extension version based on
> the output parameter types, with a lookup at the TupleDesc for the
> function to adapt.
> - Add tests to sql/oldextversions.sql to stress the old function based
> on smallint results.
> - Bump pageinspect.control.
>
> Quan, would you like to produce a patch? That's a good exercise to
> understand how the maintenance of extensions is done.
new patch attached
> --
> Michael
>
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
pageinspect.patch | text/plain | 5.7 KB |
pageinspect--1.9--1.10.sql | text/plain | 589 bytes |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-07-09 01:29:07 | Re: Incorrect usage of strtol, atoi for non-numeric junk inputs |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2021-07-09 01:12:52 | Re: Outdated replication protocol error? |