On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 05:26:22PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I noticed that I'm committer for this patch in the commitfest, though I
> don't remember setting that. Are you expecting me to commit it? I
> thought you'd do it, but if you want me to assume the responsibility I
> can do that.
I
Andres Freund wrote:
> On December 23, 2017 9:26:22 PM GMT+01:00, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> >I noticed that I'm committer for this patch in the commitfest, though I
> >don't remember setting that. Are you expecting me to commit it? I
> >thought you'd do it, but if you want me to assume the res
On December 23, 2017 9:26:22 PM GMT+01:00, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
>I noticed that I'm committer for this patch in the commitfest, though I
>don't remember setting that. Are you expecting me to commit it? I
>thought you'd do it, but if you want me to assume the responsibility I
>can do that.
I
I noticed that I'm committer for this patch in the commitfest, though I
don't remember setting that. Are you expecting me to commit it? I
thought you'd do it, but if you want me to assume the responsibility I
can do that.
--
Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL
On 2017-12-15 11:15:47 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > The elog(), which was itself upgraded from a simple Assert by commit
> > d70cf811, appears in exactly the same form in 9.3+. Things did change
> > there, but they were kept in sync.
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> The elog(), which was itself upgraded from a simple Assert by commit
> d70cf811, appears in exactly the same form in 9.3+. Things did change
> there, but they were kept in sync.
BTW, if you're going to do it, I would target the similar er
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> I have one minor piece of feedback on the upgrading of assertions to
>> ereport()s with ERRCODE_DATA_CORRUPTION: It would be nice if you could
>> upgrade the raw elog() "can't happen" error within
>> IndexBuildHeapRangeScan() to be an erepo
On 2017-12-15 10:46:05 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Pushed this way. Moved some more relfrozenxid/relminmxid tests outside
> > of the cutoff changes, polished some error messages.
> >
> >
> > Alvaro, Michael, Peter, and everyone else I'
On 2017-12-15 20:25:22 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Alvaro, Michael, Peter, and everyone else I'd greatly appreciate if you
> > could have a look at the backported version, just about everything but
> > v10 had conflicts, some of them n
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Pushed this way. Moved some more relfrozenxid/relminmxid tests outside
> of the cutoff changes, polished some error messages.
>
>
> Alvaro, Michael, Peter, and everyone else I'd greatly appreciate if you
> could have a look at the backported
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Alvaro, Michael, Peter, and everyone else I'd greatly appreciate if you
> could have a look at the backported version, just about everything but
> v10 had conflicts, some of them not insubstantial.
I have gone through the backpatched versio
On 2017-12-14 17:00:29 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2017-11-13 19:03:41 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> > diff --git a/src/backend/access/heap/rewriteheap.c
> > b/src/backend/access/heap/rewriteheap.c
> > index f93c194e182..7d163c91379 100644
> > --- a/src/backend/access/heap/rewritehea
Hi,
On 2017-11-13 19:03:41 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> diff --git a/src/backend/access/heap/rewriteheap.c
> b/src/backend/access/heap/rewriteheap.c
> index f93c194e182..7d163c91379 100644
> --- a/src/backend/access/heap/rewriteheap.c
> +++ b/src/backend/access/heap/rewriteheap.c
> @@ -407,7 +40
On 2017-12-07 18:32:51 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > Looking at 0002: I agree with the stuff being done here.
>
> The level of details you are providing with a proper error code is an
> improvement over the first version proposed in m
On 2017-12-07 17:41:56 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > Looking at 0002: I agree with the stuff being done here. I think a
> > > couple of these checks could be moved one block outerwards in term of
> > > scope; I don't see any reason why the check should not apply in that
> > > case. I didn't
Hello,
Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-12-06 17:23:55 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > 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. HO
On 2017-12-07 12:08:38 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Your commit message does a poor job of acknowledging prior work on
> > diagnosing the problem starting from Dan's initial test case and patch.
>
> (Nit: I have extracted from the test case of Dan an isolation test,
> which Andres has reduced
Hi,
On 2017-12-06 17:23:55 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > 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 exac
Hi,
On 2017-12-06 13:21:15 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I think you've done a stellar job of identifying what the actual problem
> was. I like the new (simpler) coding of that portion of
> HeapTupleSatisfiesVacuum.
Thanks!
> freeze-the-dead is not listed in isolation_schedule; an easy fix.
Y
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Looking at 0002: I agree with the stuff being done here.
The level of details you are providing with a proper error code is an
improvement over the first version proposed in my opinion.
> I think a
> couple of these checks could be moved on
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 1:21 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Put together, I propose the attached delta for 0001.
I have been looking at Andres' 0001 and your tweaks here for some time
since yesterday...
I have also performed sanity checks using all the scripts that have
accumulated on my archives fo
Andres Freund wrote:
> 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,
I think you've done a stellar job of identifying what the actual problem
was. I like the new (simpler) coding of that portion of
HeapTupleSatisfiesVacuum.
freeze-the-dead is not listed in isolation_schedule; an easy fix.
I confirm that the test crashes with an assertion failure without the
code f
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Ping. I'm a bit surprised that a bug fixing a significant data
> corruption issue has gotten no reviews at all.
Note that I was planning to look at this problem today and tomorrow my
time, getting stuck for CF handling last week and conferen
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
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 4:18 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-11-13 19:03:41 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
>> 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 poli
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 m
On 2017-11-13 19:03:41 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Staring at the vacuumlazy hunk I think I might have found a related bug:
> > heap_update_tuple() just copies the old xmax to the new tuple's xmax if
> > a multixact and still running. It does so without verifying liveliness
> > of members. Is
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 messag
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 va
30 matches
Mail list logo
