Re: v13: CLUSTER segv with wal_level=minimal and parallel index creation - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Noah Misch
Subject Re: v13: CLUSTER segv with wal_level=minimal and parallel index creation
Date
Msg-id 20200908024709.GA3640955@rfd.leadboat.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: v13: CLUSTER segv with wal_level=minimal and parallel index creation  (Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: v13: CLUSTER segv with wal_level=minimal and parallel index creation  (Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 10:43:32AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> At Tue, 08 Sep 2020 09:13:53 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote in 
> > At Mon, 7 Sep 2020 02:32:55 -0700, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote in 
> > > As a PoC, this looks promising.  Thanks.  Would you add a test case such that
> > > the following demonstrates the bug in the absence of your PoC?
> > > 
> > >   printf '%s\n%s\n%s\n' 'log_statement = all' 'wal_level = minimal' 'max_wal_senders = 0' >/tmp/minimal.conf
> > >   make check TEMP_CONFIG=/tmp/minimal.conf
> > 
> > Mmm. I was close to add some tests to 018_wal_optimize.pl but your
> > suggestion seems better.  I added several ines to create_index.sql.
> > 
> > > Please have the test try both a nailed-and-mapped relation and a "nailed, but
> > > not mapped" relation.  I am fairly confident that your PoC fixes the former
> > > case, but the latter may need additional code.
> > 
> > Mmm. You're right. I choosed pg_amproc_fam_proc_index as
> > nailed-but-not-mapped index.
> 
> I fixed a typo (s/staring/starting/).

At a glance, this looks reasonable.  If a closer look doesn't reveal problems,
I'll push this.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Justin Pryzby
Date:
Subject: Re: 回复:how to create index concurrently on partitioned table
Next
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: Global snapshots