On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Simon Riggs <
simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> On 30 June 2015 at 05:02, Amit Kapila <
amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 7:18 PM, Simon Riggs <
simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > On 28 June 2015 at 17:17, Tom Lane <
tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> >>
>> > If lseek fails badly then SeqScans would give *silent* data loss, which in my view is worse. Just added pages aren't the only thing we might miss if lseek is badly wrong.
>> >
>>
>> So for the purpose of this patch, do we need to assume that
>> lseek can give us wrong size of file and we should add preventive
>> checks and other handling for the same?
>> I am okay to change that way, if we are going to have that as assumption
>> in out code wherever we are using it or will use it in-future, otherwise
>> we will end with some preventive checks which are actually not required.
>
>
> They're preventative checks. You always hope it is wasted effort.
>
I am not sure if Preventative checks (without the real need) are okay if they
are not-cheap which could happen in this case. I think Validating buffer-tag
would require rel or sys cache lookup.
