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

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: Concurrency bug in amcheck
Date
Msg-id CAH2-WznAruKUvsjzDhs68cVvr_D0UDt9K_zzNJB17zQ-AtJ12w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Concurrency bug in amcheck  (Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Concurrency bug in amcheck  (Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi Alexander,

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 7:27 AM Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you for your reminder.   Revised patch is attached.  Now, the contents of deleted btree pages isn't masked.
I'vechecked that installcheck passes with wal_consistency_checking='Btree'.  I'm going to push this if no objections.
 

This looks good to me. One small thing, though: maybe the comments
should not say anything about the REDO routine -- that seems like a
case of "the tail wagging the dog" to me. Perhaps say something like:

"Remove the last pivot tuple on the page.  This keeps things simple
for WAL consistency checking."

(Just a suggestion.)

Thanks!
-- 
Peter Geoghegan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Confusing behavior of create table like
Next
From: Alexander Korotkov
Date:
Subject: Re: Concurrency bug in amcheck