On 2017-11-20 11:18:45 -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2017-11-13 19:03:41 -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 2017-11-03 07:53:30 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > > > Here's that patch. I've stared at this some, and Robert did too. Robert > > > mentioned that the commit message might need some polish and I'm not > > > 100% sure about the error message texts yet. > > > > > > I'm not yet convinced that the new elog in vacuumlazy can never trigger > > > - but I also don't think we want to actually freeze the tuple in that > > > case. > > > > I'm fairly sure it could be triggered, therefore I've rewritten that. > > > > I've played around quite some with the attached patch. So far, after > > applying the second patch, neither VACUUM nor VACUUM FULL / CLUSTER make > > the situation worse for already existing corruption. HOT pruning can > > change the exact appearance of existing corruption a bit, but I don't > > think it can make the corruption meaningfully worse. It's a bit > > annoying and scary to add so many checks to backbranches but it kinda > > seems required. The error message texts aren't perfect, but these are > > "should never be hit" type elog()s so I'm not too worried about that. > > > > > > Please review! > > Ping? Alvaro, it'd be good to get some input here.
Ping. I'm a bit surprised that a bug fixing a significant data corruption issue has gotten no reviews at all. Greetings, Andres Freund
