On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Amit Langote <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > On 2017/06/23 10:22, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Amit Langote >> <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: >>> On 2017/06/22 16:56, Michael Paquier wrote: >>>> Did you check this patch with wal_consistency_checking? I am getting >>>> failures so your patch does not have the masking of GIN pages >>>> completely right: >>>> FATAL: inconsistent page found, rel 1663/16385/28133, forknum 0, blkno 0 >>>> CONTEXT: WAL redo at 0/39379EB8 for Gin/UPDATE_META_PAGE: >>>> That's easily reproducible with installcheck and a standby replaying >>>> the changes. I did not look at the code in details to see what you may >>>> be missing here. >>> >>> Oh, wasn't sure about the gin_mask() changes myself. Thanks for checking. >>> >>> Actually, the WAL consistency check fails even without patching >>> gin_mask(), so the problem may be with the main patch itself. That is, >>> the patch needs to do something else other than just teaching >>> GinInitMetabuffer() to initialize pd_lower. Will look into that. >>> >> >> I've not read the code deeply but I guess we should use >> GinInitMetabuffer() in ginRedoUpdateMetapage() instead of >> GinInitPage(). Maybe also GinInitPage() in ginRedoDeleteListPages() is >> the same. > > That was it, thanks for the pointer. > > Attached updated patch, which I confirmed, passes wal_consistency_check = gin.
Thank you for updating the patch. It looks good to me. BTW I'm inclined to have a regression test case where doing 'make check' to the streaming replication environment with wal_consistency_check on standby server so that we can detect a bug around the wal. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers