| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Kamigishi Rei <iijima(dot)yun(at)koumakan(dot)jp>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #17245: Index corruption involving deduplicated entries |
| Date: | 2021-11-01 02:21:57 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wz=vhvBx1GjF+oueHh8YQcHoQYrMi0F0zFMHEr8yc4sCoA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 5:19 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> The only way it could be okay for an LP_REDIRECT item to point to an
> LP_DEAD item would be if you knew for sure that the LP_REDIRECT item
> would actually become LP_DEAD at the same time as the LP_DEAD item (so
> both get removed from indexes) -- which is a contradiction in terms.
> Why wouldn't pruning just mark the LP_REDIRECT item LP_DEAD instead,
> while making the would-be LP_DEAD item skip straight to being an
> LP_UNUSED item? That approach is strictly better.
Attached patch adds assertions and comments to
heap_page_prune_execute() that document my understanding of things.
This passes "make check-world" for me.
How do you feel about doing something like this too?
--
Peter Geoghegan
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v1-0001-Add-heap-only-tuple-assertions-to-pruning.patch | application/octet-stream | 4.1 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Semab Tariq | 2021-11-01 05:50:04 | Re: BUG #17260: Unable to Download Installer: Receiving Internal Server Error 500 |
| Previous Message | PG Bug reporting form | 2021-11-01 01:08:04 | BUG #17260: Unable to Download Installer: Receiving Internal Server Error 500 |