From: | Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Do not check unlogged indexes on standby |
Date: | 2019-08-15 13:57:30 |
Message-ID: | DE1A3088-C2D7-436D-99BB-9C44F56C8F57@yandex-team.ru |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> 13 авг. 2019 г., в 20:30, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> написал(а):
>
> That's one possibility. When I first designed amcheck it was important
> to be conservative, so I invented a general rule about never acquiring
> multiple buffer locks at once. I still think that that was the correct
> decision for the bt_downlink_check() check (the main extra
> bt_index_parent_check() check), but I think that you're right about
> retrying to verify the sibling links when bt_index_check() is called
> from SQL.
>
> nbtree will often "couple" buffer locks on the leaf level; it will
> acquire a lock on a leaf page, and not release that lock until it has
> also acquired a lock on the right sibling page (I'm mostly thinking of
> _bt_stepright()). I am in favor of a patch that makes amcheck perform
> sibling link verification within bt_index_check(), by retrying while
> pessimistically coupling buffer locks. (Though I think that that
> should just happen on the leaf level. We should not try to be too
> clever about ignorable/half-dead/deleted pages, to be conservative.)
PFA V1 of this check retry.
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
0001-In-amcheck-nbtree-do-rightlink-verification-with-loc.patch | application/octet-stream | 3.7 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Sergei Kornilov | 2019-08-15 14:48:55 | Re: Change ereport level for QueuePartitionConstraintValidation |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-08-15 13:48:00 | Re: Don't like getObjectDescription results for pg_amop/pg_amproc |