On 2016-06-07 19:49:59 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 2:52 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > I'd also be ok with adding & documenting (beta release notes)
> > > CREATE EXTENSION pg_visibility;
> > > SELECT relname FROM pg_class WHERE relkind IN ('r', 'm') AND NOT
> pg_check_visibility(oid);
> > > or something olong those lines.
> >
> > That wouldn't be too useful as-written in my book, because it gives
> > you no detail on what exactly the problem was. Maybe it could be
> > "pg_check_visibility(regclass) RETURNS SETOF tid", where the returned
> > TIDs are non-frozen TIDs on frozen pages. Then I think something like
> > this would work:
> >
> > SELECT c.oid, pg_check_visibility(c.oid) FROM pg_class WHERE relkind
> > IN ('r', 't', 'm');
> >
>
> I have implemented the above function in attached patch. Currently, it
> returns SETOF tupleids, but if we want some variant of same, that should
> also be possible.
Cool!
I think if we go with the pg_check_visibility approach, we should also
copy the other consistency checks from vacuumlazy.c, given they can't
easily be triggered. Wonder how we can report both block and tuple
level issues. Kinda inclined to report everything as a block level
issue?
Regards,
Andres
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
