From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
---|---|
To: | Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
Subject: | Re: BUG #15896: pg_upgrade from 10-or-earlier: TRAP: FailedAssertion(»!(metad->btm_version >= 3)« |
Date: | 2019-07-17 23:10:56 |
Message-ID: | CAH2-WzkUd0aqrdwjK=pOBHvLd=PBKgu8Dn+tP5+=CnHzadjoEQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 1:13 AM Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org> wrote:
> I applied the patch to 12/HEAD and the Debian testsuite now passes the
> 10->12 upgrade test.
Thanks for testing!
I am not quite sure if I should push ahead with this, simply because I
don't know what the point of commit 0a64b45152b really was (Alexandar?
Teodor?). Why not just make the assertions a bit more less strict in
one or two places? Is the _bt_cachemetadata() function really
necessary? Can we remove it now?
AFAICT the only purpose that _bt_cachemetadata() serves that isn't
better handled by updating the assertions that were failing back in
April of 2018 (and still sometimes fail) is initializing the new-to-v3
fields defensively (initializing btm_oldest_btpo_xact and
btm_last_cleanup_num_heap_tuples are set to their default values).
Even that seems unnecessary, since every piece of code knows that it
isn't sensible to read those values. Including contrib/pageinspect,
which was actually taught this by commit 0a64b45152b itself.
I'm a bit nervous about pushing a commit that will almost be a
straight revert of 0a64b45152b without first getting confirmation that
_bt_cachemetadata() is actually totally unnecessary.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2019-07-17 23:51:43 | Re: BUG #15896: pg_upgrade from 10-or-earlier: TRAP: FailedAssertion(»!(metad->btm_version >= 3)« |
Previous Message | Vladimir Ryabtsev | 2019-07-17 21:24:59 | Re: User mapping: view over a foreign table |