From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool) |
Date: | 2016-03-15 04:09:39 |
Message-ID: | CAM3SWZQq=tDsR102f5Wnncw0bwStFYjx06r+wrqR6Rvv24wfmQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 8:19 AM, Anastasia Lubennikova
<a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> But I have some concerns about compatibility with my patches.
> I've tried to call bt_index_check() over my "including" patch [1] and caught
> a segfault.
>
> LOG: server process (PID 31794) was terminated by signal 11: Segmentation
> fault
> DETAIL: Failed process was running: select bt_index_check('idx');
>
> I do hope that my patch will be accepted in 9.6, so this conflict looks
> really bad.
> I think that error is caused by changes in pages layout. To save some space
> nonkey attributes are truncated
> [1] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/9/433/
I posted a review of your "Covering + unique indexes" patch, where I
made an educated guess about what the problem is here (I sort of
hinted at what I thought it was already, in this thread, actually). I
haven't actually tested this theory of mine myself just yet, but let
me know what you think of it on the thread for your patch.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2016-03-15 04:42:34 | Re: Timeline following for logical slots |
Previous Message | Kouhei Kaigai | 2016-03-15 04:03:56 | Re: Reworks of CustomScan serialization/deserialization |