Re: [HACKERS] WAL Consistency checking for hash indexes

On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Kuntal Ghosh
> <kuntalghosh.2007@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> I've attached a patch which implements WAL consistency checking for
>> hash indexes. This feature is going to be useful for developing and
>> testing of WAL logging for hash index.
>>
>
> 2.
> + else if ((opaque->hasho_flag & LH_BUCKET_PAGE) ||
> + (opaque->hasho_flag & LH_OVERFLOW_PAGE))
> + {
> + /*
> + * In btree bucket and overflow pages, it is possible to modify the
> + * LP_FLAGS without emitting any WAL record. Hence, mask the line
> + * pointer flags.
> + * See hashgettuple() for details.
> + */
> + mask_lp_flags(page);
> + }
>
> Again, this mechanism is also modified by patch "Microvacuum support
> for hash index", so above changes needs to be adjusted accordingly.
> Comment referring to btree is wrong, you need to refer hash.
I've corrected the text in the comment and re-based the patch on the
latest hash index patch for WAL logging[1]. As discussed in the
thread, Microvacuum patch can be re-based on top of this patch.


[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1%2BmvCucroWQwX3S7aBR%3D0yBJGF%2BjQz4x4Cx9QVsMFTZUw%40mail.gmail.com
-- 
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
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