| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Floris Van Nee <florisvannee(at)optiver(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: visibility map corruption |
| Date: | 2021-07-06 22:46:48 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WznVk6xCXVEeK1dFfYYnxJMgva=+7yMsCoTht4M9WboA-Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 3:30 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> Yes, I can, though it seems like a much bigger issue than pg_upgrade.
> I will be glad to dig into it.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Technically this would be an issue
for any program that uses "pg_resetwal -x" in the way that pg_upgrade
does, with those same expectations. But isn't pg_upgrade the only
known program that behaves like that?
I don't see any reason why this wouldn't be treated as a pg_upgrade
bug in the release notes, regardless of the exact nature or provenance
of the issue -- the pg_upgrade framing seems useful because this is a
practical problem for pg_upgrade users alone. Have I missed something?
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2021-07-06 22:47:19 | Re: visibility map corruption |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2021-07-06 22:30:41 | Re: visibility map corruption |