On 2020-Feb-05, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> The second item genereated another thread a little after this thread.
> Everything was handled on this other thread. Ultimately, I rejected
> the enhancement on the grounds that it wasn't safe on standbys in the
> face of concurrent splits and deletions
On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 1:27 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> So, I'm confused. There appear to be two bugfix patches in this thread,
> with no relationship between them, and as far as I can tell only one of
> them has been addressed. What was applied (6754fe65a4c6) is
> significantly different from
On 2019-Sep-11, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 7:10 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > The patch has been committed already.
>
> Oh, wait. It hasn't. Andrey didn't create a new thread for his largely
> independent patch, so I incorrectly assumed he created a CF entry for
> his
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 7:10 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> The patch has been committed already.
Oh, wait. It hasn't. Andrey didn't create a new thread for his largely
independent patch, so I incorrectly assumed he created a CF entry for
his original bugfix.
--
Peter Geoghegan
The patch has been committed already.
Peter Geoghegan
(Sent from my phone)
On 2019-Aug-15, Andrey Borodin wrote:
> PFA V1 of this check retry.
CFbot complains that this doesn't apply; can you please rebase?
--
Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
> 13 авг. 2019 г., в 20:30, Peter Geoghegan написал(а):
>
> That's one possibility. When I first designed amcheck it was important
> to be conservative, so I invented a general rule about never acquiring
> multiple buffer locks at once. I still think that that was the correct
> decision for
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 5:17 AM Andrey Borodin wrote:
> We have a bunch of internal testing HA clusters that suffered from corruption
> conditions.
> We fixed everything that can be detected with parent-check on primaries or
> usual check on standbys.
> (page updates were lost both on primary
> 13 авг. 2019 г., в 3:23, Peter Geoghegan написал(а):
>
> I pushed your patch to all branches that have amcheck just now, so now
> we skip over unlogged relations when in recovery, though I made some
> revisions.
Oh, cool, thanks!
> Your patch didn't handle temp tables/indexes that were
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 2:58 AM Andrey Borodin wrote:
> BTW I really want to enable rightlink-leftlink invariant validation on
> standby..
That seems very hard. My hope was that bt_check_index() can detect the
same problem a different way. The bt_right_page_check_scankey()
cross-page check
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 2:58 AM Andrey Borodin wrote:
> Currently, if we check indexes on standby we often get
>
> man-psbpshn0skhsxynd/xiva_xtable_testing_01 R # select
> bt_index_check('xiva_loadtest.pk_uid');
> ERROR: 58P01: could not open file "base/16453/125407": No such file or
>
Hi hackers!
Currently, if we check indexes on standby we often get
man-psbpshn0skhsxynd/xiva_xtable_testing_01 R # select
bt_index_check('xiva_loadtest.pk_uid');
ERROR: 58P01: could not open file "base/16453/125407": No such file or
directory
I think that we should print warning and that's
12 matches
Mail list logo
