Re: GIN needs tonic

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 14:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I've pointed out before that the regression tests are not particularly
>> meant to provide an exhaustive test of WAL recovery. In this particular
>> case, so far as I can tell the bug is only observable with
>> full_page_writes turned off --- otherwise XLogInsert will invariably
>> decide to log the full page, because it's going to see a zeroed-out
>> LSN in the passed-in buffer.

> Yes, I was testing with full_page_writes = off at that point.

In further testing, I've found that the CVS HEAD regression tests
actually will expose the error if you run them with full_page_writes off
and then force a WAL replay. (8.4 would not have, though, because of the
DROP TABLESPACE at the end of the run.) In any case, I stand by the
opinion that the standard regression tests aren't really meant to
exercise WAL recovery.

BTW, there's more than one bug here :-(. Heikki found one, but the
code is also attaching the buffer indicator to the wrong rdata entry
--- the record header, not the workspace, is what gets suppressed
if the full page is logged.

regards, tom lane