Re: Concurrency bug in amcheck - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: Concurrency bug in amcheck
Date
Msg-id CAH2-WzmPJgTX7tcohMjzWPad71+uCYReivAnnKKKk+EA4nGY_A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Concurrency bug in amcheck  (Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru>)
Responses Re: Concurrency bug in amcheck
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 2:54 AM Alexander Korotkov
<a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> Proposed fix is attached.  Spotted by Konstantin Knizhnik,
> reproduction case and fix from me.

I wonder if we should fix btree_xlog_unlink_page() instead of amcheck.
We already know that its failure to be totally consistent with the
primary causes problems for backwards scans -- this problem can be
fixed at the same time:

https://postgr.es/m/CANtu0ohkR-evAWbpzJu54V8eCOtqjJyYp3PQ_SGoBTRGXWhWRw@mail.gmail.com

We'd probably still use your patch for the backbranches if we went this way.

What do you think?

-- 
Peter Geoghegan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: backup manifests
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: WIP/PoC for parallel backup