On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 5:49 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Amit Langote <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> writes: >> On 2017/08/22 9:39, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Amit Langote >>> <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> 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. 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 > have that field filled?
There will be inconsistency between the pages, and the masking check will complain. My point here is that wal_consistency_checking is primarily used by developers on newly-deployed clusters to check WAL consistency by using installcheck. So an upgraded cluster would see diffs because of that, but I would think that nobody would really face them. Perhaps we should document this point for wal_consistency_check? Getting the patch discussed on this thread into v10 would have saved the day here, but this boat has sailed already. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
