On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 2:03 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
>> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 1:10 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 2:54 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
I've marked the CF entry closed. However, I'm not sure if we're quite
done with this thread. Weren't we
On 2017/11/03 6:24, Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Langote writes:
>> On 2017/09/26 16:30, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> Cool, let's switch it back to a ready for committer status then.
>
>> Sure, thanks.
>
> Pushed with some cosmetic adjustments --- mostly, making the comments more
> explicit about why we
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 1:10 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 2:54 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I've marked the CF entry closed. However, I'm not sure if we're quite
>>> done with this thread. Weren't we going to adjust nbtree and hash to
>>> be more aggress
On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 1:10 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 2:54 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I've marked the CF entry closed. However, I'm not sure if we're quite
>> done with this thread. Weren't we going to adjust nbtree and hash to
>> be more aggressive about labeling their metapa
On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 2:54 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Langote writes:
>> On 2017/09/26 16:30, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> Cool, let's switch it back to a ready for committer status then.
>
>> Sure, thanks.
>
> Pushed with some cosmetic adjustments --- mostly, making the comments more
> explicit a
Amit Langote writes:
> On 2017/09/26 16:30, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Cool, let's switch it back to a ready for committer status then.
> Sure, thanks.
Pushed with some cosmetic adjustments --- mostly, making the comments more
explicit about why we need the apparently-redundant assignments to
pd_
On 2017/09/26 16:30, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>>> Except that small thing, the patches do their duty.
>>
>> Thanks, revised patches attached.
>
> Cool, let's switch it back to a ready for committer status then.
Sure, thanks.
Regards,
Amit
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
>> Except that small thing, the patches do their duty.
>
> Thanks, revised patches attached.
Cool, let's switch it back to a ready for committer status then.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
T
On 2017/09/26 12:17, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> So, ISTM, comments that the patches add should all say that setting the
>> meta pages' pd_lower to the correct value helps to pass those pages to
>> xlog.c as compressible standard layout pages, re
On 2017/09/26 11:34, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> So, ISTM, comments that the patches add should all say that setting the
>> meta pages' pd_lower to the correct value helps to pass those pages to
>> xlog.c as compressible standard layout pages, regar
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> Trying to catch up.
Glad to see you back.
> Just to remind, I didn't actually start this thread [1] to address the
> issue that the FPWs of meta pages written to WAL are not getting
> compressed. An external backup tool relies on pd_lower t
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Trying to catch up.
>
> On 2017/09/25 13:43, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>> Added and updated the comments for both btree and hash index patches.
>>
>> I don't have real complaints a
Hi.
Trying to catch up.
On 2017/09/25 13:43, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> Added and updated the comments for both btree and hash index patches.
>
> I don't have real complaints about this patch, this looks fine to me.
>
> +* Currently, the
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> I understand that and I think there are always multiple ways to write
> same information. It might be better to pass this patch series to
> committer if you don't see any mistake because he might anyway change
> some comments before committing
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> Added and updated the comments for both btree and hash index patches.
>
> I don't have real complaints about this patch, this looks fine to me.
>
> +* Currently, the advantage of
On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Added and updated the comments for both btree and hash index patches.
I don't have real complaints about this patch, this looks fine to me.
+* Currently, the advantage of setting pd_lower is in limited cases like
+* during wal_consist
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 4:25 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 12:47 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Amit Kapila writes:
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> I am not saying that no index AMs
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 4:25 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> Also, _hash_init() would need some extra work to
>> generate FPWs, but I don't think that it is necessary per its handling
>> of a per-record meta data either. So REGBUF_STANDARD co
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 4:25 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 12:47 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Amit Kapila writes:
>>> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Michael Paquier
>>> wrote:
I am not saying that no index AMs take advantage FPW compressibility
for their meta pages.
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 12:47 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Kapila writes:
>> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
>>> I am not saying that no index AMs take advantage FPW compressibility
>>> for their meta pages. There are cases like this one, as well as one
>>> code path in
Amit Kapila writes:
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> I am not saying that no index AMs take advantage FPW compressibility
>> for their meta pages. There are cases like this one, as well as one
>> code path in BRIN where this is useful, and it is useful as well when
>
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> I'd think about adjusting the comments the proper way for each AM so
>> as one can read those comments and catch any limitation immediately.
>> The fact this has not been pointe
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Amit Kapila
>>> wrote:
On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 7:15 PM, Michael Paquier
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> I'd think about adjusting the comments the proper way for each AM so
> as one can read those comments and catch any limitation immediately.
> The fact this has not been pointed out on this thread before any
> checks and the many mails exch
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Amit Kapila
>> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 7:15 PM, Michael Paquier
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> You have already noticed above that it will h
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 7:15 PM, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
>>>
>>
>> You have already noticed above that it will help when
>> wal_checking_consistency is used and that was the main m
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 7:15 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Amit Langote
>> wrote:
>>> On 2017/09/14 16:00, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> Sure,
On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 7:15 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> On 2017/09/14 16:00, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Amit Langote
>>> wrote:
Sure, no problem.
>>>
>>> OK, I took a closer look at all patches, but
On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> On 2017/09/14 16:00, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Amit Langote
>> wrote:
>>> Sure, no problem.
>>
>> OK, I took a closer look at all patches, but did not run any manual
>> tests to test the compression except som
On 2017/09/14 16:00, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> Sure, no problem.
>
> OK, I took a closer look at all patches, but did not run any manual
> tests to test the compression except some stuff with
> wal_consistency_checking.
Thanks for the revi
On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Why do we need to change metapage at every place for btree ...
I have been hunting for some time places where meta buffers were
marked as dirtied and logged. So in the effort, I think that my hands
and mind got hotter, forgetting that pd_lower
On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> Sure, no problem.
>
>
> +*
> +* This won't be of any help unless we use option like REGBUF_STANDARD
> +* while registering the buffer for metapage as otherwise, it won
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> Sure, no problem.
OK, I took a closer look at all patches, but did not run any manual
tests to test the compression except some stuff with
wal_consistency_checking.
+ if (opaque->flags & GIN_DELETED)
+ mask_page_content(page);
+ el
On 2017/09/13 16:20, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 2:48 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> I updated the patches so that the metapage's pd_lower is set to the
>> correct value just before *every* point where we are about to insert a
>> full page image of the metapage into WAL. That's
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 2:48 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> I updated the patches so that the metapage's pd_lower is set to the
> correct value just before *every* point where we are about to insert a
> full page image of the metapage into WAL. That's in addition to doing the
> same in various metapag
On 2017/09/13 13:05, Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Langote writes:
>> On 2017/09/12 23:27, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>> I think one point which might be missed is that the patch needs to
>>> modify pd_lower for all usages of metapage, not only when it is first
>>> time initialized.
>
>> Maybe I'm missing some
Amit Langote writes:
> On 2017/09/12 23:27, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> I think one point which might be missed is that the patch needs to
>> modify pd_lower for all usages of metapage, not only when it is first
>> time initialized.
> Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't the metadata size fixed and h
Thanks for the review.
On 2017/09/12 23:27, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> I updated the patches for GIN, BRIN, and SP-GiST to include the following
>> changes:
>>
>> 1. Pass REGBUF_STNADARD flag when registering the metapage buffer
>>
>
> I have look
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> On 2017/09/11 18:13, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
>>> On 2017/09/10 15:22, Michael Paquier wrote:
Coordinating efforts here would be nice. If you, Amit K, are taking
care of a patch f
On 2017/09/11 18:13, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2017/09/10 15:22, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> Coordinating efforts here would be nice. If you, Amit K, are taking
>>> care of a patch for btree and hash, would you, Amit L, write the part
>>> for
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> I have prepared separate patches for hash and btree index. I think
>> for another type of indexes, it is better to first fix the pd_lower
>> issue.
>
> Just wondering (sorry I have n
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> On 2017/09/10 15:22, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>> On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 9:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:24 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
On 2017/09/10 15:22, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 9:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Michael Paquier writes:
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:24 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> In short, this patch needs a significant rewrite, and more
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> I have prepared separate patches for hash and btree index. I think
> for another type of indexes, it is better to first fix the pd_lower
> issue.
Just wondering (sorry I have not looked at your patch in details)...
Have you tested the compres
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Amit Kapila writes:
>>> On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Michael Paquier
>>> wrote:
Coordinating efforts here would be nice. If you, Amit K, are taking
care of a patch for btree
On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Kapila writes:
>> On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
>>> Coordinating efforts here would be nice. If you, Amit K, are taking
>>> care of a patch for btree and hash
>
>> I think here we should first agree on what we
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 1:26 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> FWIW, now that we've noticed the discrepancy, I'm for using
> REGBUF_STANDARD or equivalent for all metapage calls. Even if it
> saves no space, inconsistency is bad because it's confusing.
OK, I don't mind having a more aggressive approach, but
Amit Kapila writes:
> On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> Coordinating efforts here would be nice. If you, Amit K, are taking
>> care of a patch for btree and hash
> I think here we should first agree on what we want to do. Based on
> Tom's comment, I was thinking of c
On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> I think here we should first agree on what we want to do. Based on
> Tom's comment, I was thinking of changing comments in btree/hash part
> and additionally for hash indexes, I can see if we can pass
> REGBUF_STANDARD for all usages of metapa
On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 9:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Michael Paquier writes:
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:24 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> In short, this patch needs a significant rewr
On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 9:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Michael Paquier writes:
>>> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:24 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
In short, this patch needs a significant rewrite, and more analysis than
you've done so far on whether t
On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 9:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
>> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:24 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> In short, this patch needs a significant rewrite, and more analysis than
>>> you've done so far on whether there's actually any benefit to be gained.
>>> It might not
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:54 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
>> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Amit Langote
>> wrote:
>>> On 2017/09/07 13:09, Michael Paquier wrote:
pd_lower should remain at 0 on pre-10 servers.
>
>>> Doesn't PageInit(), which is where any page gets initializ
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:24 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> In short, this patch needs a significant rewrite, and more analysis than
>> you've done so far on whether there's actually any benefit to be gained.
>> It might not be worth messing with.
> I did some measurements of th
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:24 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> This means that the premise of this patch is wrong. Adjusting pd_lower,
> by itself, would accomplish precisely zip for WAL compression, because
> we'd still not be telling the WAL code to compress out the hole.
>
> To get any benefit, I think we'
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> On 2017/09/07 13:09, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> pd_lower should remain at 0 on pre-10 servers.
>> Doesn't PageInit(), which is where any page gets initialized, has always
>> set pd_lower to SizeOfPageHeaderData?
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 9:42 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> I too tend to think that any users who use this masking facility would
> know to expect to get these failures on upgraded clusters with invalid
> pd_lower in meta pages.
I strongly disagree.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprise
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> On 2017/09/07 13:09, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> pd_lower should remain at 0 on pre-10 servers.
>
> Doesn't PageInit(), which is where any page gets initialized, has always
> set pd_lower to SizeOfPageHeaderData?
Yes, sorry. I had a mind slipper
On 2017/09/07 13:09, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The idea I'd had was to apply the masking only if pd_lower >=
>> SizeOfPageHeaderData, or if you wanted to be stricter, only if
>> pd_lower != 0.
>
> If putting a check, it seems to me that the stric
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> The idea I'd had was to apply the masking only if pd_lower >=
> SizeOfPageHeaderData, or if you wanted to be stricter, only if
> pd_lower != 0.
If putting a check, it seems to me that the stricter one makes the
most sense. pd_lower should remain
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 5:49 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I looked briefly at these patches. I'm not sure that it's safe for the
>> mask functions to assume that meta pages always have valid pd_lower.
>> What happens when replaying log data concerning an old index that doesn't
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> I too tend to think that any users who use this masking facility would
> know to expect to get these failures on upgraded clusters with invalid
> pd_lower in meta pages.
Yes, I don't think that an optimization reducing WAL that impacts all
us
On 2017/09/07 8:51, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 5:49 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Amit Langote writes:
>>> On 2017/08/22 9:39, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> I updated brin_mask() and spg_mask() in the attached updated pa
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 5:49 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Langote writes:
>> On 2017/08/22 9:39, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Amit Langote
>>> wrote:
I updated brin_mask() and spg_mask() in the attached updated patches so
that they consider meta pages as con
Amit Langote writes:
> On 2017/08/22 9:39, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Amit Langote
>> wrote:
>>> I updated brin_mask() and spg_mask() in the attached updated patches so
>>> that they consider meta pages as containing unused space.
I looked briefly at these patches
On 2017/08/22 9:39, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> On 2017/06/27 10:22, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Masahiko Sawada
>>> wrote:
Thank you for the patches! I checked additional patches for brin and
spgist
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> On 2017/06/27 10:22, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Masahiko Sawada
>> wrote:
>>> Thank you for the patches! I checked additional patches for brin and
>>> spgist. They look good to me.
>>
>> Last versions are stil
On 2017/06/27 10:22, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>> Thank you for the patches! I checked additional patches for brin and
>> spgist. They look good to me.
>
> Last versions are still missing something: brin_mask() and spg_mask()
> can be upda
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Thank you for the patches! I checked additional patches for brin and
> spgist. They look good to me.
Last versions are still missing something: brin_mask() and spg_mask()
can be updated so as mask_unused_space() is called for meta pages.
E
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> On 2017/06/26 10:54, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Amit Langote
>> wrote:
>>> That was it, thanks for the pointer.
>>
>> GinInitMetabuffer() sets up pd_lower and pd_upper anyway using
>> PageInit so the check of
On 2017/06/26 10:54, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> That was it, thanks for the pointer.
>
> GinInitMetabuffer() sets up pd_lower and pd_upper anyway using
> PageInit so the check of PageIsVerified is guaranteed to work in any
> case. Upgraded
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> That was it, thanks for the pointer.
>
> GinInitMetabuffer() sets up pd_lower and pd_upper anyway using
> PageInit so the check of PageIsVerified is guaranteed to work in any
> ca
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 1:35 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Amit Langote
>> > wrote:
>> >> Initially, I had naively set wal_consistency_check = all before running
>> >> make in
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> That was it, thanks for the pointer.
GinInitMetabuffer() sets up pd_lower and pd_upper anyway using
PageInit so the check of PageIsVerified is guaranteed to work in any
case. Upgraded pages will still have their pd_lower set to the
previous
Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Amit Langote
> > wrote:
> >> Initially, I had naively set wal_consistency_check = all before running
> >> make installcheck and then had to wait for a long time to confirm that
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> Initially, I had naively set wal_consistency_check = all before running
>> make installcheck and then had to wait for a long time to confirm that WAL
>> generated by the gin test in
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> Initially, I had naively set wal_consistency_check = all before running
> make installcheck and then had to wait for a long time to confirm that WAL
> generated by the gin test indeed caused consistency check failure on the
> standby with the
On 2017/06/23 15:07, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>> 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_con
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> 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 detec
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> On 2017/06/23 10:22, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Amit Langote
>> wrote:
>>> On 2017/06/22 16:56, Michael Paquier wrote:
Did you check this patch with wal_consistency_checking? I am getting
failures so
On 2017/06/23 10:22, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Amit Langote
> 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
>>> complet
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> On 2017/06/22 16:56, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Amit Langote
>> wrote:
>>> On 2017/06/20 20:37, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> On 2017/06/19 23:31, Tom
On 2017/06/22 16:56, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> On 2017/06/20 20:37, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Amit Langote
>>> wrote:
On 2017/06/19 23:31, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'd suggest a rule like "if pd_lower is smal
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> On 2017/06/20 20:37, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Amit Langote
>> wrote:
>>> On 2017/06/19 23:31, Tom Lane wrote:
I'd suggest a rule like "if pd_lower is smaller than SizeOfPageHeaderData
then don't trust i
On 2017/06/20 20:37, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> On 2017/06/19 23:31, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I'd suggest a rule like "if pd_lower is smaller than SizeOfPageHeaderData
>>> then don't trust it, but assume all of the page is valid data".
>>
>> Actually,
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> On 2017/06/19 23:31, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Amit Kapila writes:
>>> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Amit Langote
>>> wrote:
What are some arguments against setting pd_lower in the GIN metapage as
follows?
>>
>>> Actually, hash index
On 2017/06/19 23:31, Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Kapila writes:
>> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Amit Langote
>> wrote:
>>> What are some arguments against setting pd_lower in the GIN metapage as
>>> follows?
>
>> Actually, hash index also has similar code (See _hash_init_metabuffer)
>> and I see
On 2017/06/19 22:59, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> What are some arguments against setting pd_lower in the GIN metapage as
>> follows?
>>
>> GinMetaPageData *metad = GinPageGetMeta(page);
>>
>> ((PageHeader) page)->pd_lower =
>> ((char *) metad
Amit Kapila writes:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> What are some arguments against setting pd_lower in the GIN metapage as
>> follows?
> Actually, hash index also has similar code (See _hash_init_metabuffer)
> and I see no harm in doing this at similar other places.
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> What are some arguments against setting pd_lower in the GIN metapage as
> follows?
>
> GinMetaPageData *metad = GinPageGetMeta(page);
>
> ((PageHeader) page)->pd_lower =
> ((char *) metad + sizeof(GinMetaPageData)) - (char *) page;
>
> I
90 matches
Mail list logo
