Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification
Date
Msg-id CAB7nPqQXqnN2jNR62wuV74iKdgHafCw8bM7E0b7bORZk6MdnnA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 9:34 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
> I should point out that I shipped virtually the same code yesterday,
> as v1.1 of the Github version of amcheck (also known as amcheck_next).
> Early adopters will be able to use this new "heapallindexed"
> functionality in the next few days, once packages become available for
> the apt and yum community repos. Just as before, the Github version
> will work on versions of Postgres >= 9.4.
>
> This seems like good timing on my part, because we know that this new
> "heapallindexed" verification will detect the "freeze the dead" bugs
> that the next point release is set to have fixes for -- that is
> actually kind of how one of the bugs was found [1]. We may even want
> to advertise the available of this check within amcheck_next, in the
> release notes for the next Postgres point release.

My apologies for slacking here. I would still welcome some regression
tests to stress the bloom API you are proposing! For now I am moving
this patch to next CF.
-- 
Michael


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] static assertions in C++
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Restricting pg_rewind to data/wal dirs