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

From Alexander Korotkov
Subject Re: Concurrency bug in amcheck
Date
Msg-id CAPpHfduNq4aR6Cdo7oWuGyOD46n4bG6Egd-kDWg0F2RQUXd-Ow@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Concurrency bug in amcheck  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>)
Responses Re: Concurrency bug in amcheck  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi, Peter!

On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 3:23 AM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 4:06 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 5:56 AM Alexander Korotkov
> <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> > Thank you.  2nd patch is proposed for master and makes btree page
> > unlink remove all the items from the page being deleted.
>
> This looks good, but can we do the
> wal_consistency_checking/btree_mask() improvement, too?

You never got around to committing the second patch (or the
wal_consistency_checking stuff). Are you planning on picking it up
again?

Thank you for your reminder.   Revised patch is attached.  Now, the contents of deleted btree pages isn't masked.  I've checked that installcheck passes with wal_consistency_checking='Btree'.  I'm going to push this if no objections.

------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov 
Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: Since '2001-09-09 01:46:40'::timestamp microseconds are lost when extracting epoch
Next
From: Alexander Korotkov
Date:
Subject: Re: WIP: BRIN multi-range indexes