Re: new heapcheck contrib module - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: new heapcheck contrib module
Date
Msg-id CAH2-WzmS+=4xcjZev-6XAC0opsCm1rTo1AGx1rW5ZVhbrrjS-g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: new heapcheck contrib module  (Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: new heapcheck contrib module  (Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com>)
Re: new heapcheck contrib module  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 10:02 AM Mark Dilger
<mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> I'm indifferent about that change.  Done for v13.

Moving on with verification of the same index in the event of B-Tree
index corruption is a categorical mistake. verify_nbtree.c was simply
not designed to work that way.

You were determined to avoid allowing any behavior that can result in
a backend crash in the event of corruption, but this design will
defeat various measures I took to avoid crashing with corrupt data
(e.g. in commit a9ce839a313).

What's the point in not just giving up on the index (though not
necessarily the table or other indexes) at the first sign of trouble,
anyway? It makes sense for the heap structure, but not for indexes.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "David G. Johnston"
Date:
Subject: Re: Document "59.2. Built-in Operator Classes" have a clerical error?
Next
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: new heapcheck contrib module