Re: HOT chain validation in verify_heapam()
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: HOT chain validation in verify_heapam() |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoYRMJX6UE9zjeRKUYgnTrtLOayOcg3im2pGQYCgwDpNog@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: HOT chain validation in verify_heapam() (Himanshu Upadhyaya <upadhyaya.himanshu@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: HOT chain validation in verify_heapam()
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 12:09 PM Himanshu Upadhyaya <upadhyaya.himanshu@gmail.com> wrote: > Initially while implementing logic to identify the root of the HOT chain > I was getting crash and regression failure's that time I thought of having > this check along with a few other changes that were required, > but you are right, it's unnecessary to add data to the predecessor > array(in this case) and is not required. I am removing this from the patch. I finally found time to look at this today -- apologies for the long delay -- and I don't think that it addresses my objections. When I proposed lp_valid, I had a very simple idea in mind: it tells you whether or not the line pointer is, at some basic level, valid. Like, it contains numbers that could point to a tuple on the page, at least hypothetically. But that is something that can be determined strictly by inspecting the line pointer, and yet you have check_tuple_visibility() changing the value based on the visibility status of xmin. So it seems that we still don't have a patch where the value of a variable called lp_valid corresponds to whether or not the L.P. is valid. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: