Re: WAL Consistency checking for hash indexes

Couple of review comments,,

You may also need to update the documentation as now we are also going
to support wal consistency check for hash index. The current
documentation does not include hash index.

+ only records originating from those resource managers. Currently,
+ the supported resource managers are <literal>heap</>,
+ <literal>heap2</>, <literal>btree</>, <literal>gin</>,
+ <literal>gist</>, <literal>sequence</>, <literal>spgist</>,
+ <literal>brin</>, and <literal>generic</>. Only

Following comment in hash_mask() may require changes if patch for
'Microvacuum support for Hash Index - [1]' gets committed.

+ /*
+ * In hash bucket and overflow pages, it is possible to modify the
+ * LP_FLAGS without emitting any WAL record. Hence, mask the line
+ * pointer flags.
+ * See hashgettuple() for details.
+ */

[1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAE9k0PmXyQpHX8%3DL_hFV7HfPV8qrit19xoUB86waQ87rKYzmYQ%40mail.gmail.com

--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma
EnterpriseDB:http://www.enterprisedb.com

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Kuntal Ghosh
>> <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Hello everyone,
>>>
>>> I've attached a patch which implements WAL consistency checking for
>>> hash indexes. This feature is going to be useful for developing and
>>> testing of WAL logging for hash index.
>>>
>>
>> 2.
>> + else if ((opaque->hasho_flag & LH_BUCKET_PAGE) ||
>> + (opaque->hasho_flag & LH_OVERFLOW_PAGE))
>> + {
>> + /*
>> + * In btree bucket and overflow pages, it is possible to modify the
>> + * LP_FLAGS without emitting any WAL record. Hence, mask the line
>> + * pointer flags.
>> + * See hashgettuple() for details.
>> + */
>> + mask_lp_flags(page);
>> + }
>>
>> Again, this mechanism is also modified by patch "Microvacuum support
>> for hash index", so above changes needs to be adjusted accordingly.
>> Comment referring to btree is wrong, you need to refer hash.
> I've corrected the text in the comment and re-based the patch on the
> latest hash index patch for WAL logging[1]. As discussed in the
> thread, Microvacuum patch can be re-based on top of this patch.
>
>
> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1%2BmvCucroWQwX3S7aBR%3D0yBJGF%2BjQz4x4Cx9QVsMFTZUw%40mail.gmail.com
> --
> Thanks & Regards,
> Kuntal Ghosh
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>