Re: [HACKERS] pageinspect and hash indexes

Hi Amit,

>>> +
>>> + /* Check if it is an unused hash page. */
>>> + if (pageopaque->hasho_flag == LH_UNUSED_PAGE)
>>> + return page;
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't see we need to have a separate check for unused page, why
>>> can't it be checked with other page types in below check.
>>>
>>> if (pagetype != LH_OVERFLOW_PAGE && pagetype != LH_BUCKET_PAGE &&
>>> pagetype != LH_BITMAP_PAGE && pagetype != LH_META_PAGE)
>>
>> That is because UNUSED page is as good as an empty page except that
>> empty page doesn't have any pagetype. If we add condition for checking
>> UNUSED page in above if check it will never show unused page as an
>> unsed page rather it will always show it as an empty page.
>>
>
> Oh, okay, but my main objection was that we should not check hash page
> type (hasho_flag) without ensuring whether it is a hash page.  Can you
> try to adjust the above code so that this check can be moved after
> hasho_page_id check?

Yes, I got your point. I have done that but then i had to remove the
check for PageIsEmpty(). Anyways, I think PageIsEmpty() condition will
only be true for one page in entire hash index table and can be
ignored. If you wish, I could mention about it in the documentation.

>
>> To avoid
>> this, at the start of verify_hash_page function itself if we recognise
>> page as UNUSED page we return immediately.
>>
>>>
>>> 2.
>>> + /* Check if it is an empty hash page. */
>>> + if (PageIsEmpty(page))
>>> + ereport(ERROR,
>>> + (errcode(ERRCODE_INDEX_CORRUPTED),
>>> + errmsg("index table contains empty page")));
>>>
>>>
>>> Do we want to give a separate message for EMPTY and NEW pages?  Isn't
>>> it better that the same error message can be given for both of them as
>>> from user perspective there is not much difference between both the
>>> messages?
>>
>> I think we should show separate message because they are two different
>> type of pages. In the sense like, one is initialised whereas other is
>> completely zero.
>>
>
> I understand your point, but not sure if it makes any difference to user.
>

okay, I have now anyways removed the check for PageIsEmpty. Please
refer to the attached '0002
allow_pageinspect_handle_UNUSED_hash_pages.patch'


Also, I have attached
'0001-Mark-freed-overflow-page-as-UNUSED-pagetype-v2.patch' that
handles your comment mentioned in [1].

[1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1%2BVE_TDRLWpyeOf%2B7%2B6if68kgPNwO4guKo060rm_t3O5w%40mail.gmail.com

--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma
EnterpriseDB:http://www.enterprisedb.com

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers