| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Michail Nikolaev <michail(dot)nikolaev(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Concurrency bug in amcheck |
| Date: | 2020-08-04 22:58:30 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WznAruKUvsjzDhs68cVvr_D0UDt9K_zzNJB17zQ-AtJ12w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Alexander,
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 7:27 AM Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Thank you for your reminder. Revised patch is attached. Now, the contents of deleted btree pages isn't masked. I've checked that installcheck passes with wal_consistency_checking='Btree'. I'm going to push this if no objections.
This looks good to me. One small thing, though: maybe the comments
should not say anything about the REDO routine -- that seems like a
case of "the tail wagging the dog" to me. Perhaps say something like:
"Remove the last pivot tuple on the page. This keeps things simple
for WAL consistency checking."
(Just a suggestion.)
Thanks!
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2020-08-04 23:17:48 | Re: Concurrency bug in amcheck |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-08-04 22:27:32 | Re: Confusing behavior of create table like |