Re: wal_consistency_checking reports an inconsistency on master branch
От | amul sul |
---|---|
Тема | Re: wal_consistency_checking reports an inconsistency on master branch |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAAJ_b95XnGnUnxRfTjq__ATeysD_nVS1vz9x4+mx-LaCeQrQhg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: wal_consistency_checking reports an inconsistency on masterbranch (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: wal_consistency_checking reports an inconsistency on masterbranch
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 9:06 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2018-04-13 12:29:21 +0900, Amit Langote wrote: >> On 2018/04/13 7:36, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote: >> >> In short, it looks like the tests added to update.sql by commit >> >> 2f178441 ("Allow UPDATE to move rows between partitions") lead to this >> >> failure, since I always hit a problem when update.sql is reached. I >> >> haven't gone to the trouble of digging any deeper than that just yet. >> > >> > Without having looked at it in much detail, this seems rather more >> > likely to be the fault of 2f178441. That was recent enough that it's >> > easy to believe that I'd be the first to notice it, and actually has >> > on-disk changes, in the form of ItemPointerSetMovedPartitions(). >> >> I think you meant f16241bef7cc2 (Raise error when affecting tuple moved >> into different partition), because it's the one that adds >> ItemPointerSetMovedPartitions. Commit 2f178441 you quoted added the test >> that triggered the failure. > > Right. Amul, have you looked at this? > I have looked into this and found that the issue is in heap_xlog_delete -- we have missed to set the correct offset number from the target_tid when XLH_DELETE_IS_PARTITION_MOVE flag is set. Please find the attached patch does the correction and a big thanks to Peter for the bug report. Regards, Amul
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: