On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 5:56 AM Alexander Korotkov <a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > Thank you. I've worked a bit on comments and commit message. I would > appreciate you review.
This looks good to me. > > I like your idea of making the primary consistent with the REDO > > routine on the master branch only. I wonder if that will make it > > possible to change btree_mask() so that wal_consistency_checking can > > check deleted pages as well. The contents of a deleted page's special > > area do matter, and yet we don't currently verify that it matches (we > > use mask_page_content() within btree_mask() for deleted pages, which > > seems inappropriately broad). In particular, the left and right > > sibling links should be consistent with the primary on a deleted page. > > Thank you. 2nd patch is proposed for master and makes btree page > unlink remove all the items from the page being deleted. This looks good, but can we do the wal_consistency_checking/btree_mask() improvement, too? There is no reason why it can't work with fully deleted pages. It already works with half-dead pages. It would be nice to be able to test this patch in that way, and it would be nice to have it in general. -- Peter Geoghegan
