Re: [HACKERS] Set of fixes for WAL consistency check facility

[Michael Paquier]

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 2:44 AM, Robert Haas  wrote:
> I committed the patch posted to the other thread.  Hopefully that
> closes this issue.

Thanks.
-- 
Michael


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] Set of fixes for WAL consistency check facility

[Robert Haas]

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 8:00 PM, Michael Paquier
 wrote:
> Beginning a new thread to raise awareness... As already reported here,
> I had a look at what has been committed in a507b869:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB7nPqRzCQb=vdfhvmtp0hmlbhu6z1agdo4gjsup-hp8jx+...@mail.gmail.com
>
> Here are a couple of things I have noticed while looking at the code:
>
> + * Portions Copyright (c) 2016, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
> s/2016/2017/ in bufmask.c and bufmask.h.
>
> +   if (ItemIdIsNormal(iid))
> +   {
> +
> +   HeapTupleHeader page_htup = (HeapTupleHeader) page_item;
> Unnecessary newline here.
>
> +* Read the contents from the backup copy, stored in WAL record and
> +* store it in a temporary page. There is not need to allocate a new
> +* page here, a local buffer is fine to hold its contents and a mask
> +* can be directly applied on it.
> s/not need/no need/.
>
> In checkXLogConsistency(), FPWs that have the flag BKPIMAGE_APPLY set
> will still be checked, resulting in a FPW being compared to itself. I
> think that those had better be bypassed.
>
> Please find attached a patch with those fixes. I am attaching as well
> this patch to next CF.

I committed the patch posted to the other thread.  Hopefully that
closes this issue.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers