Re: Concurrency bug in amcheck
От | Peter Geoghegan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Concurrency bug in amcheck |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAH2-WznAruKUvsjzDhs68cVvr_D0UDt9K_zzNJB17zQ-AtJ12w@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Concurrency bug in amcheck (Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Concurrency bug in amcheck
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Alexander, On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 7:27 AM Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you for your reminder. Revised patch is attached. Now, the contents of deleted btree pages isn't masked. I'vechecked that installcheck passes with wal_consistency_checking='Btree'. I'm going to push this if no objections. This looks good to me. One small thing, though: maybe the comments should not say anything about the REDO routine -- that seems like a case of "the tail wagging the dog" to me. Perhaps say something like: "Remove the last pivot tuple on the page. This keeps things simple for WAL consistency checking." (Just a suggestion.) Thanks! -- Peter Geoghegan
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: