From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification |
Date: | 2018-03-31 23:56:30 |
Message-ID: | CAH2-Wzk_AOyvefcfPf_8bBoxqJ0+DVaosu+1yD6=F42q3Kwo1w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 3:15 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
>> WFM. I have all the information I need to produce the next revision now.
>
> I might as well post this one first. I'll have 0002 for you in a short while.
Attached is 0002 -- the amcheck enhancement itself. As requested by
Andres, this adds a new overloaded set of functions, rather than
dropping and recreating functions to change their signature.
I'm pretty sure that avoiding issues with dependencies by using this
approach is unprecedented, so I had to use my own judgement on how to
deal with a couple of things. I decided not to create a new C symbol
for the new function versions, preferring to leave it to the existing
PG_NARGS() tests. I guess this was probably what you intended I should
do, based on your "Given the PG_NARGS() checks..." remark. I also
chose to not document the single argument functions in the docs. I
suppose that we should consider these to be implementation details of
a work-around for dependency breakage, something that doesn't need to
be documented. That's a bit like how we don't document functions
within certain extensions that are designed just to get called within
a view definition. I don't feel strongly about it, though.
No other changes to report. I did mention that this would have a few
small changes yesterday; no need to repeat the details now.
Thanks
--
Peter Geoghegan
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v8-0002-Add-amcheck-verification-of-heap-relations.patch | text/x-patch | 38.4 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-04-01 00:20:38 | Re: PostgreSQL's handling of fsync() errors is unsafe and risks data loss at least on XFS |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2018-03-31 23:00:11 | Re: some last patches breaks plan cache |