From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
---|---|
To: | Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Improve search for missing parent downlinks in amcheck |
Date: | 2019-04-25 23:46:08 |
Message-ID: | CAH2-Wzm0b-qeohzE_eX-Z=Mm=b_rwecA6sfX9UyVgbOB6GNCNg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 12:00 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 7:30 PM Alexander Korotkov
> <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> > Currently we amcheck supports lossy checking for missing parent
> > downlinks. It collects bitmap of downlink hashes and use it to check
> > subsequent tree level. We've experienced some large corrupted indexes
> > which pass this check due to its looseness.
>
> Can you be more specific? What was the cause of the corruption? I'm
> always very interested in hearing about cases that amcheck could have
> detected, but didn't.
Ping?
I am interested in doing better here. The background information seems
very interesting.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2019-04-26 01:44:30 | Re: Reducing the runtime of the core regression tests |
Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2019-04-25 23:29:18 | Re: Do PostgreSQL have map and set structure(like STL in C++)? |