Re: amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool)
От | Peter Geoghegan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAM3SWZQq=tDsR102f5Wnncw0bwStFYjx06r+wrqR6Rvv24wfmQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool) (Anastasia Lubennikova <a.lubennikova@postgrespro.ru>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 8:19 AM, Anastasia Lubennikova <a.lubennikova@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > But I have some concerns about compatibility with my patches. > I've tried to call bt_index_check() over my "including" patch [1] and caught > a segfault. > > LOG: server process (PID 31794) was terminated by signal 11: Segmentation > fault > DETAIL: Failed process was running: select bt_index_check('idx'); > > I do hope that my patch will be accepted in 9.6, so this conflict looks > really bad. > I think that error is caused by changes in pages layout. To save some space > nonkey attributes are truncated > [1] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/9/433/ I posted a review of your "Covering + unique indexes" patch, where I made an educated guess about what the problem is here (I sort of hinted at what I thought it was already, in this thread, actually). I haven't actually tested this theory of mine myself just yet, but let me know what you think of it on the thread for your patch. -- Peter Geoghegan
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: